Talk:List of paraphilias

Hirsutophilia

Paraphilia involving sexual attraction to body hair. Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.233.143 (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a rule about which interests should or should not be included on the list. However, the hirsutophilia article could use some expansion. Alternatively, the one-sentence definition could be moved over to wiktionary, were it would be ideal. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BitterGrey (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO the rule is, approximately, that it belongs in the paraphilia list iff there is a primary scientific psychology source that lists it as such (e.g. the DSM). Any other things that are arguably paraphilias, but unsourced as such, should be separately listed (under 'non-paraphilic sexual interests') iff there is verifiable source that they do indeed exist as a practice, and not listed at all if there is not such a source. Basically, list everything that really exists (or for which there is enough misinformation to deserve a debunking article, a la 'donkey punch'), but only list as 'paraphilia' that which the psychological community has judged to come under that (formal, diagnostic) term. So in this case, I would list 'hirsutophilia' under 'non-paraphilic sexual interests' iff someone can provide a WP:RS. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name for the following paraphilias?

• Attraction to completely hairless bodies.
• Attraction to people with incredibly long thick heads of hair.
• Attraction to homosexuals of the opposite gender.
• Hand fetish.
• Attraction to weak, scrawny, effeminate looking men.
• Attraction to agressive women who act like wild animals (growling, sratching, biting, tongue bathing).
• Extreme attraction to eyebrows/eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Try the reference desk, if there was a name for it and any research, it'd probably be in the table already. The other option would be to check the second reference, it contains more than 500 specific paraphilias. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual excluded but sinophile included?

Apparently attraction to someone of the same sex (which basically prevents biological reproduction) is not a paraphilia, but a sinophilia ("person who demonstrates a strong interest in aspects of Chinese culture" according to sinophile) is a paraphila.

Is this a joke? I completely fail to understand the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of an item in this list. The LMOE (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that, like anglophile, it shouldn't be on this list. (My reference to desiring unusually tall Asians on the paraphilia talk page was to point out a difference between the self-promoted and established definitions of paraphilia. [1])

By the way, homosexuality is a bad example, since it was a political decision made by psychiatrists. Whether the wrong decision was to include homosexuality previously or to exclude it now is a debate I don't wish to get involved with.BitterGrey (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reworking table

I'm planning on reworking the table, here's my work to date. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Progressive edits are usually preferred. In the above, are there changes that you are proposing in addition to the removal of the references column? I'm assuming that the conversion above is incomplete. BitterGrey (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't really progressively edit a table in mainspace but I've no problem with getting input on the final product here before moving to mainspace. I don't see the changes as substantive, I'm integrating the reference column with the source of arousal as a footnote. The reference column was essentially just empty but for footnotes, and I couldn't see a reason not to just append them to the end of the source of arousal. I've also retitled the middle column and I'm integrating citation templates. Also dug up what weblinks I could for the sources. Other minor changes include wording of the source of arousal and removing redlinks. This is also helping me update {{paraphilia}} as there are several listed here that aren't listed there. This version would also later allow the addition of extra information, such as incidence, prevalence, and other minor tidbits. We could even work in homosexuality as a noted entry. My first reason to edit was because the lines between columns make for better reading.

It might be an idea to include ICD-10 codes as well, if we can track them down, and anything with the DSM as a source should have one as well. I've removed and combined a couple that were duplicates or poorly sourced (Teratophilia and robot fetishism being the ones that springs to mind - they're sourced to webpages rather than medical sources required by WP:MEDRS; no objection to including if journal articles can be found). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved to main article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Autopedophilia?

How does that even happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.127.152.35 (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Erythrotrichophilist

Does this one exist? I've seen it here[2] (Ainslie McIntyre's comment, September 15, 2009, 16:26:40).--Follgramm3006 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)