Talk:List of paraphilias/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RS list of paraphilias

Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association September 22, 2009 has a list of paraphilias if you are looking for reliable support to include an item in this list. Go to the link and search "paraphilias" and the list will be just below that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Table column

The table column is "Paraphilias" and so if Homophilia is to be placed in there under that header it may well be a violation of WP:Personal attacks against every gay editor here. Just a heads-up. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Absence of sexual jealousy

For most persons, sexual jealousy is clearly commonplace. It's so common, in fact, that one easily ignores the existence of individuals whom the emotion is entirely alien to. A relevant question on this talk page is whether that trait of personality is sexually deviant. Another is whether there is a name for the condition in medicine. If it cannot be designated deviant nor pathological, I suggest to add it to Section “Technical terms for non-paraphilic sexual interests,” if it has a name. If it doesn't have a name, however, I hold it that a new name should be injected into circulation. It has been done before in psychiatry: the autistic community engendered neurotypical. If we decide to take the proposed course of action, I endorse the candidate azealotypic. The word is derived from the Latin zelotypia, meaning jealousy. The derived word reads azealotypic rather than azelotypic in order to conform to the etymology of the English zeal, which was too derived from a word formed by the same Latin root zelus. A(n)- is a negative in Latin and Greek. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The only worthy rival I see now would be a word derived from invidentia or invidia. Nonetheless, invidia is the precursor of the English envy, not jealousy, for which zelus itself is the precursor. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Pages, and in particular entries on this page, are based on reliable sources, not personal opinion which is considered original research. Also, wikipedia is not the place to coin or popularize neologisms. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that. Thought I would just put it out there, in case something would come out of it. By the way, mind you that this is how “reliable sources” emerge. Everything begins from ideas. EIN (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not on wikipedia. Wikipedia does not predict and does not publish original research. Until mainstream sexological or psychological sources publish on the idea, it should not appear on a main page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

Updates needing help

Added |- |Oculophilia to the table which is define as fetish relating and pertaining to the eyes. Oculolinctus aka licking the eye ball is a subset of the fetishes relating to the eye ball. A very detailed book on the subject matter is Encyclopedia of "Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices" viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Unusual-Practices-Brenda-Love/dp/1569800111/ Which goes in details to the numerous variations and objects that people can develop _______-philla to. In addition one website (of many) contains a list of fetish terminology http://blanketfort.uninhibited.net/fics/kink/kink.html

Help is needed to link to the source pages in the book in Amazon and creating the footnote code correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.39.151.104 (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Update for DSM-5

I changed the intro to reflect the APA's new approach of distinguishing paraphilias from paraphilic disorders. I also tagged the article as needing a subject expert, which I would loosely define as anyone who has and can understand DSM-5. Questions (in my mind) include whether the list has changed for DSM-5, and whether some items listed here are specifically identified as paraphilias but not paraphilic disorders (or if anything that is a paraphilia can become a paraphilic disorder). I'm also wondering whether anything has moved in or out of the NOS category. Urolagnia, for example, doesn't seem to fit the NOS criterion of being rare, judging by the large variety of web sites that cater to it. Peter Chastain (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This list is not only based on the DSM; maybe it should be since some authors have different definitions of what a paraphilia is. For example, Anil Aggrawal listed sexual attraction to the same sex as a paraphilia, even though it is not considered a paraphilia by most researchers. Also, this article already has an expert (as in it's his or her profession: psychology and sexology) working on it; see James Cantor. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to add what I can. I tweaked the new lead to refer to "interests" instead of "behaviors," as one can go through the motions without actually having the paraphilia. (The DSM also uses "interest.")

To answer Peter's (very logical) question: No, there are not any changes in the list in light of the new DSM. The DSM-5 did indeed change which individual people might be diagnosed as paraphilic, but did not make any changes as to which sexual interests might be called paraphilic. That is, perfectly happy and healthy cross-dressers (the individual people), no longer qualify for a diagnosis, even though fetishistic transvestism (the erotic phenomenon) would still be called a paraphilia, with the distressed patient qualifying for a DSM-5 diagnosis of Transvestic Disorder.

What we used to call Paraphilia NOS is now "Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder," to cover all the other paraphilias that do not have code numbers of their own. The DSM-5 names urophilia, necrophilia, coprophilia, and klismaphilia as some examples.

I hope that's a help. (Whether/when the expert-needed tag can be deleted, I leave up to others.)

— James Cantor (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

For reference here on the talk page, this is the edit James is referring to above. And per my and his comments above, I removed the expert-needed tag that was also about a request to update the article with DSM-5 material. Flyer22 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

James and Flyer22, thanks for making these changes. Can someone update the DSM-IV references to DSM-5? Using the old reference is a bit awkward in the lead (which specifically mentions DSM-5). Since I don't actually have a copy of DSM-5 to check the references, I would prefer not to do this myself. Peter Chastain (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Propose addition of Schiedophilia (attraction to cartoons) to the list

It seems like a fairly common paraphilia which should be included in this list. What are your thoughts? Undescribed (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2014‎ (UTC)

I've reverted you here and here. You need to cease the reverting on this matter; don't delve into WP:Edit warring on it. You are the one who proposed that the addition be added, looking for thoughts. So then you think it's a good idea to add the addition before reading those thoughts, and that it is a good idea to then revert the objection? My thoughts...since you asked: Given how often it's seen as normal for men to find cartoon/animated or anime women sexually attractive, such as Jessica Rabbit, Ariel (The Little Mermaid) or Lara Croft, I'm not sure that this attraction should be on this list...not unless it's stressed that the sexual attraction is a primary or exclusive one, which is indeed abnormal. Paraphilia is about abnormal sexual arousal/sexual attraction. Furthermore, like I stated in that second revert: What authoritative sources call this attraction a paraphilia? As has been suggested on this talk page before, given that any ole researcher can call something a paraphilia and be out of step with the scientific community, we should stick to what authoritative sources, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or other highly reliable sources, state on the topic of paraphilias. One researcher, Anil Aggrawal (who is mentioned in the WP:Lead), for example, includes homosexuality as a paraphilia in his long list. But do you see homosexuality currently on this list? No. Because that view is WP:Fringe. It's because this list could include the view of any ole researcher...that I find this list problematic. It takes careful monitoring because of all the WP:Fringe views that can make its way on it. Your text addition is problematic because not only do I not see where the wider scientific community considers that attraction a paraphilia, the source is not Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant and you also WP:Pipelinked it to the Cartoon pornography article as though cartoon pornography is commonly considered a paraphilia. And then there's the fact that it was formatted wrongly, though you fixed that for the most part.

On a site note: Sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Just look at the root of the word Schiedophilia; "philia" isn't that pretty self explanatory? Undescribed (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And what WP:Reliable sources show that schiedophilia or toonophilia, as you originally called it in your "01:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)" comment above, are legitimate terms? Or better yet, satisfy the WP:MEDRS standards for inclusion? Philia does not always refer to paraphilia, by the way; teleiophilia (from Greek teleios, "full grown"), for example, is sexual interest in adults; and that certainly is not a paraphilia. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And you can't say that just because many men are attracted to female human cartoons that it is not a paraphilia because that is an unorthodox attraction. And then take people like me for example; I'm a gay man who has a sexual attraction not to female human cartoons, but to male ANIMAL cartoons. (But not real life animals). Are you trying to tell me that I don't have a paraphilia? Sorry, but I find that rather hard to believe.Undescribed (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.104.35 (talk)

And yes, they are legitimate terms if you look in my citation. It is a list of PARAPHILIAS 72.87.104.35 (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And why do you say it's not a "reliable" source? What do you call "reliable" anyways? 72.87.104.35 (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We can't take your word for what a paraphilia is. And what Wikipedia considers a reliable source is found at the WP:Reliable sources guideline I linked to above. What they consider a reliable source for medical content is found at the WP:MEDRS guideline I linked to above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

not all of these are necessarily paraphilias

For instance, a guy who is a podophile (foot fetish) does not necessarily suffer from it. As I quote from [1]:

"A paraphilia is an attraction to an unregular and extreme sexual behavior. A fetish could become a paraphillia if it gets harmful or obsessive".

Thus this is not a list of paraphilias but a list of fetish behaviours, isnt it? 87.69.67.233 (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

First: The source you listed is not a WP:Reliable source. Second: This is a list of paraphilias because it concerns "sexual interests in objects, situations, or individuals that are highly atypical," and a lot of these sexual interests often classify as paraphilias under a specific diagnosis. This is despite the fact that some of them, like a foot fetish, can simply be a fetish without being a paraphilia. Flyer22 (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nepiophilia is missing...

Nepiophilia is a synonym for the less used term Infantophilia, which is mentioned on the list. Could nepiophilia be mentioned as a synonym for the latter somewhere? --Lonely punker (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sacofricosis

Sacofricosis redirects here, but I couldn't find it on this page. However, when I did an Internet search it returned:

         List of paraphilias  
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias - Proxy - Highlight 
         Sacofricosis. Making a hole in a pocket in order to masturbate unobtrusively

I hope it's OK if I insert the line above.
☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Dick Kimball, as you can see, I reverted you because your addition is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. I would have reverted you earlier, but, a few minutes ago, I saw your edit for the first time. Flyer22 (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Perhaps a better source might be: http://www.odd-sex.com/search/node/Sacofricosis. Anyway, I'm only asking and haven't edited the Article.

☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Dick Kimball, no, that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. It's also not a WP:Reliable source at all. On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist; your ping didn't work, though, since my username is different now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Exophilia

Shouldn't Exophilia technically be placed here? It currently has no pages that link to it, which is why I ask. It seems like it should.Rogue Commander (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs to be supported by a WP:MEDRS-compliant source if it's to be listed on this list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Formal request has been received to merge: Flatulence fetishism into List of paraphilias; dated: March 2017. Proposer's Rationale: The former is a short article related to the main topic of the latter and there is no reason for a separate article that can fit onto a new section of the main one. -unsigned. I changed the requested target away from Flatulence and added the above due to precedent. Discuss here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly does not deserve its own Wikipedia article; I've thought that since I came across it years ago. It was also created by a WP:Sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Junipersgrao). Any content about it in this article should be supported by a WP:MEDRS-compliant source. HuffPost sources and similar do not cut it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

GenQuest, regarding your merge, I removed the HuffPost source, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: That's fine. Thanks for the follow-up. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:31, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Saectar, regarding this, do not add non-WP:MEDRS sources. Read what WP:MEDRS sources are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cartoons again

DeNoel, I reverted you here per the content being unsourced and per what I stated before: Talk:List of paraphilias/Archive 3#Propose addition of Schiedophilia (attraction to cartoons) to the list.

As for sourcing, the sourcing should be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Read WP:MEDRS for what I mean by using MEDRS-compliant sources. You also pointed to the Hentai and Ecchi articles to make your case. Not only are Wikipedia articles not WP:Reliable sources, you should assess what these articles state. The word hentai is defined differently internationally than it is in Japan. Like the lead of that article states, "Internationally, hentai is a catch-all term to describe a genre of anime and manga pornography." And the lead of the Ecchi article states, "[Ecchi] is perhaps softer than the Japanese word ero (エロ　from Eros), and does not imply perversion in the way hentai does." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I was unaware of an existing discussion on the addition of Schediaphilia. It wasn't listed here on the talk page. However, you are correct, Flyer22 Reborn in pointing out that this is not a generalized list, and that I should have sourced a citable reference first. I was asked about it, and it seemed like it fit, so I added it.

Having read the archived discussion, I can understand the frustration of trying to keep this list encyclopedic. I hope the changes I've made are not considered disruptive, just uninformed. I feel some people do have an abnormally excessive attraction to cartoon characters, so I might add Schediaphilia again in the future, but definitely not before I have a credible citation to reference. And since now I understand this is an issue, I will propose the addition here on the Talk page first, at such time.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, I was using the western understanding of Hentai and Ecchi (incorrect as it may be), and to excess rather than just fandom. I was just looking for examples to put in the box. Rule 34 was an afterthought, but also seemed like it fit.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

DeNoel/Christopher, Sheridan, OR, thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to assess the matter. Your subsequent edits are not what I would consider disruptive; you were consolidating redundancy. Some of the sources on this list need to be replaced per WP:MEDRS; the very old sources are one example (per the WP:MEDDATE section of WP:MEDRS). But I haven't gotten around to doing that. Plus, there are some entries on the list that have barely been studied and I wonder about their inclusion.

No need to WP:Ping me to this talk page, by the way, since it is on my watchlist.

On a side note: Have you considered having your signature name match your username so that there is no confusion about your Wikipedia identity on talk pages? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Microphilia

Primaltare, regarding this and this, what makes you think that this drmarkgriffiths source from WordPress passes WP:MEDRS? It does not. In fact, it does not even pass WP:Reliable source. You stated, "As it is an infrequent fetish, it is difficult to find direct academic studies pertaining to it." That should tell you something. Furthermore, as made clear at the Macrophilia article, women fantasizing about being sexual with giants is rare. Macrophilia is rare and doesn't have much in the way of academic sources either. Do stop adding microphilia to the list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn. I apologize for the inconvenience. I followed up by searching my school's academic database, and could not locate any recent and reliable academic studies pertaining to Microphilia. I will not attempt to add the entry again. Primaltare (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Primaltare, thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't find a name for this one

How would you call the fetish involving striped clothes? (not "stripper" related, I mean keeping the clothes on and these clothes have say, black and white stripes). It would be easier to find a partner if I could google this by its name if the name exists of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.135.221 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Ryubyss, regarding this, we go by what the reliable source state. And ephebophilia usually is not considered a paraphilia. Notice that ephebophilia includes physical/legal adults in addition to those 15 and up? Read the sourced Ephebophilia article. It would have made more sense if you'd listed hebephilia, but, as the Hebephilia article makes clear, even hebephilia is debated as a paraphilia and mental disorder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you did include hebephilia, but, as indicated by what I stated above, it's not on the list for a reason. I suppose we could include a note about the debate surrounding it, like (I think) we did before, but still. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Feliciapulo, regarding this, see WP:MEDRS. That is why I reverted you. Do not add poor sources, including poor medical sources, to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, no problem, I figured it out. I went back and looked for other sources. However, I am noticing that others on the list are using sources such as articles from The Guardian (Oculophilia). I also noticed one did not leave a source but did link another Wikipedia article (Pyrophilia), is this sufficient? Feliciapulo (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Feliciapulo, I reverted again. It doesn't seem that you took the time to read WP:MEDRS; for example, what it states about WP:Primary sources. I'll leave a note at the WP:Med talk page about this so that editors there might weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I'm a little bit confused, I looked at the WP:Primary sources page. Both of those sources I used were found in published journals, and were listed as peer-reviewed, so not original research. What about the item that sources an article from The Guardian only? Is there a reason why this piece is ok and these journal articles were not? Feliciapulo (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Feliciapulo, peer review is not the same thing as literature review. See what WP:MEDRS states about primary sources, secondary sources and literature reviews. Also, I don't work in "what about" terms. If something on the list is only sourced to The Guardian, then remove it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I understand, it wasn't intended to redirect the conversation, it was only brought up because I was wondering if there was a reason why this was ok. I will remove it then. Feliciapulo (talk) 05:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sapiosexual

"Arousal by the intelligence of other people" --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

And where is your WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says that sapiosexual is a paraphilia? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: See "Sapiosexual" per the English Wiktionary's definition and the quotations where the word is used. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Atcovi, wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. And looking at the sourcing there, I currently see weak sourcing and nothing that states that sapiosexual is a paraphilia. "Sapiosexual" is a neologism that hasn't gained enough traction in the scholarly literature. It's mainly a media term. Per WP:NEO, this is why it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. And it being a redirect was recently discussed: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 11#Sapiosexuality.

On a side note: Since the List of paraphilias article is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the new page to read - will keep that watchlisted and will keep that in mind for any future discussions. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

More philias

I found this list of sexual paraphilias and noticed that many of them are missing from this page. I don't think that a blog makes for a compelling source though, so I haven't added them to this page, but I wanted to share the list here so that those with access to suitable sources can use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapten Nordstroem (talk • contribs) 10:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Pregnancy fetishism a philia (Maiseiophilia)? This was "discovered" in the early 1990s in the first wave of western culture's so-called "new" sexualization and erotic fascination with pregnancy. It isn't listed anywhere in the article, should it be included? 2605:E000:100D:E482:E5AE:F5A:2B32:9D12 (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hypnosis as a paraphilia

Here is a recent essay by Distinguished Psychology professor Mark D. Griffiths describing unusual sexual arousal from hypnosis as a paraphilia . It does not appear in the DSM-5 as a paraphilia, but there are a number of case studies in the psychiatric literature that establish the existence of individuals with "experience of intense sexual arousal" to atypical fantasies about hypnosis, e.g.:

To many hypnotic subjects, hypnosis has strong sexual connotations. Freud ( 2 ) recognized this and mentioned the similarity between the states of hypnosis and of being in love. Sciiilder and Kanders(3) stress the erotic aspects of hypnosis and warn that sexual accusations may be made against the therapist. Speyer and Stokvis(4) studied the sexual fantasies of the hypnotic subject, and emphasized the importance of the subject’s erotic attitudes toward the therapist. Lorand(5) pointed out the subject’s unconscious desire for seduction by the hypnotist and correlated hypnotizability with yielding to the one from whom love was expected. Wolberg(6) also mentions the sexual attitude toward hypnosis in patients who have strong unconscious sexual needs. Kline(7) describes some types of sexual reactions during hypnotherapy and discusses their nature.

In a 2017 study, 4% of women in one group freely reported "Sex while drugged/mind control/hypnosis" as a fantasy

It could also be considered a sexual fetish, but paraphilia is an even better fit since the focus is not on a specific object but rather an activity or a set of fantasy scenarios, much like erotic asphyxiation, voyeurism, or Omorashi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrightVamp (talk • contribs)

Those sources are not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Griffiths's commentary is only good enough to relay it as something he thinks, but it still doesn't belong in this article. And we shouldn't be using sources that don't explicitly identify the matter as a paraphilia. Nor should we be using very old sources, such as those from 1957, for this list. And considering all of this, the Erotic hypnosis article needs work. I was correct to revert the content. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

And looking for academic sources on the topic of erotic hypnosis, it seems that the article should not even exist because the topic is not WP:Notable. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I'm hearing, it's important that unusual sexual interests be explicitly labelled a "paraphilia" in a medical text before they should appear on this list, and I have not found such a citation.

Very much agreed that Erotic hypnosis is in a poor state at the moment. Thank you for pointing out that it should have evidence of significant independent coverage. I have added a number of those citations in the Talk page for now, but I will be using their contents to fill in the article. BrightVamp (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

____

References

more philias part 2

• here is another list I found https://blogjob.com/lifeandliving/2014/08/24/list-of-fetishes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anayguy (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• here is another list I found https://thoughtcatalog.com/sylvie-quinn/2018/05/sexual-fetishes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anayguy (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

here is another list I found https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sexual-fetish_n_4144418 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anayguy (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are poor sources. See WP:MEDRS. Also, you should learn to sign your comments. And you shouldn't start new sections for every little comment in rapid fire, so I've combined them. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The term alphamegamia can be used when a person is sexually aroused by partners of a different age group[1], and "chronophilia" can describe a sexual fixation on members of a different age group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anayguy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)