Talk:Paraphilia

Sexology and sexuality C‑class High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archive of 2003-2004: /Archive 01
Archive of 2005-2006: /Archive 02
Archive of 2007-2008: /Archive 03
Archive of 2009: /Archive 04

Homosexuality

I have just added back in the sentence and reliable source about homosexuality previously being listed as a paraphilia. It is an important historical aspect of this conceptualization of sexuality. It shows that "paraphilia" is an arbitrary and shifting concept dictated by cultural forces rather than a "science" concept. Jokestress (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality#Psychology based on several most reliable sources available in depth explain that "the original position that homosexuality was a disorder was not supported by empirical research. One cause for the change in positions was that this common wisdom was challenged by empirical data showing people who were homosexual and very well-adjusted." (source: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Plaintiffs-Amended-PFFs-annotated-version.pdf#page=140) Thus your explanation is fatally unfounded and this is a reason why I remove irrelevant sentence about homosexuality which don't belong there. --Destinero (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. You seem to think this is a debate about whether homosexuality is a disorder or not. The source you cite above is about why homosexuality was removed as a disorder. Regardless of that issue, it is a fact that it was once defined as a paraphilia. Its former designation as a paraphilia is an important part of the history of that concept. We should not be trying to revise history, but reporting on facts using reliable sources. Jokestress (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. The source I cited above and the sources used in Homosexuality#Psychology explain that "as results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system." That does it mean that the inclusion of homosexuality in DSM was in error. I agree that we should not be trying to revise history and not create unfounded illusions as if paraphilia is arbitrary and shifting concept dictated by cultural forces rather than a "science" concept. I am asking other editors to comment the issue. Personally I am conviced that the sentence about homosexuality from the time before 40 years is completely inappropriate and out of context in the paraphilia article. --Destinero (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you note, homosexuality was once classified as a paraphilia. That is a fact which should be included in the paraphilia article as well as the homosexuality article. It was also once classified as a mental disorder. That is a fact which should also be included in Wikipedia. It's not a question of whether people agree with those things, but whether they are true and documented in reliable sources. In both cases they are, and we should include them for historical purposes. Jokestress (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. As you wish. I added important facts illustrating context that there were not empirical evidence which would justified the inclusion of homosexuality in the list. I agree with you it's not a question of whether people agree with those things, but whether they are true and documented in reliable sources. They are, and we should include them for historical purposes. --Destinero (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think you understand. Labeling homosexuality a paraphilia and labeling homosexuality a mental disorder are two separate issues. You keep adding information about labeling homosexuality as a mental disorder. That is not especially relevant. You should be including information about homosexuality being declassified as a paraphilia, which occurred separately. Jokestress (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way this was inserted relies primarily on primary sources (DSM eds), which can be a problem (WP:OR). The intent (to show the historic shift) in a way that is not made in the primary sources does suggest this is WP:OR. I agree that it could be included in a section on the history of paraphilia and diagnoses, but this needs to rely on secondary sources that deal with the historic shift in what is considered paraphilia, and explicitly deals with homosexuality as one instance of this. Mish (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Here are some secondary sources on the topic:

Seiden, Howard (August 6, 1983). Perverts inflict desires on unwilling partners. Montreal Gazette.

"Even homosexuality has been reclassified by the American Psychiatric Association from a paraphilia to a 'sexual orientation disturbance.'"

Charles Allen Moser, Paraphilia: A Critique of a Confused Concept. In Kleinplatz, Peggy (2001). New directions in sex therapy: innovations and alternatives. Psychology Press, ISBN 9780876309674

"Is homosexuality a paraphilia? It was the equivalent of a paraphilia in DSM-I and -II. It was and is still seen by some as dysfunctional. So how did it come it be removed from the DSM? Its removal was a political act (Bayer, 1981), no more motivated by new scientific research that the inclusion and later exclusion of masturbation and oral sex." (p. 100).

"In the DSM-II (APA, 1968, the following are listed as sexually deviant behaviors: homosexuality, fetishism, pedophilia, transvestism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism, other sexual deviation, and unspecified sexual deviation." (p. 96).

I'll add a history section soon, but I also believe it should be mentioned in the lede. Jokestress (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moser seems to clinch this, eh? You have the sources, so fine, I am sure it was seen and treated as such - and this should not be excluded from the article (even if people would prefer it wasn't in there). Let's face it, a range of approaches, like aversion therapy & chemical castration, were used for a number of paraphilias, and homosexuality, and it being regarded as a paraphilia explains the logic behind that approach to homosexuality (mental illness alone would not fully explain it). Whether it needs to be in the lead I reserve opinion on - I see no reason why it should, but I can't say I'm moved to argue against it. Mish (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So foot fetishism's not a paraphilia, huh?

"American Journal of Psychiatry describes paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:

nonhuman objects, or
the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or
children, or
nonconsenting persons.' "
70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's called Partialism according to these guys. Jokestress (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. (Don't know right now how it will be fitted into the article.) "Individuals with partialism sometimes describe the anatomy of interest to them as having equal or greater erotic attraction for them as do the genitals." Seems that there may be a good number of para-pervs among Pam Anderson fans (Breast fetishism). :D 206.130.173.55 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a woman who (sexually) prefers a marital aid to a real man a fetishist and thus a paraphiliac?

What if she uses it to treat her Female hysteria? :D 70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro explains that these guys specifically exclude sex toys, which they see as a means to an end. No word on if your masturbatory fantasy is about a sex toy, or if you can only get off inside a sex toy store or looking at sex toy catalogues... Jokestress (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I see it. Sorry folks, and thanks for pointing it out. :) 206.130.173.55 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So when does "psychologically normative adult human sexual behaviors, sexual fantasy, and sex play" become "paraphilial psychopathology?"

70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When these "experts" decide what is "normal." Usually that means anything outside of what they do, to paraphrase Kinsey. Jokestress (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must this definition be by a buncha psychiatrists--and APA ones (and the like) at that?

What about the British and European ones? Homosexuality once had many people defining it. The Law once considered it a crime. The Church considered it an abomination. Socially, it was considered plumb disgustin' ("They do what?!?"); and the psychiatrists and psychologists considered it to be a mental illness, to at times be treated with drugs, counseling ("We are making progress in curing your sickness"), and, I read somewhere, in some caes in treating wimmen suffering from les'banism, Female genital cutting (nice that Wikipedia uses a NPOV term like "cutting" instead of "mutilation").

But seriously folks, it seems to be a decent word. "Para-" (in Greek para παρά = "beside") and "-philia" (φιλία = "friendship"). So you like to masturbate on logs or you like footjobs. Sounds weird, kinky even, but likely harmless. But then the shrinks came in, mixed it in with non-consensual sex, and say it's all a disorder, unless they figure it's mild enough, presumably in their expert opinions, to say otherwise. Thanks a lot eggheads. Folks we need better sources, because right now the Wikinfo article on paraphilia is looking almost as good.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, User:70.54.181.70. Some of your questions above get close to being general discussion about the concept, rather than a discussion about improving the article. This is not a forum, so I am going to steer your legitimate questions more toward the article content. Having said that, I agree that this article does a poor job of explaining this conceptualization. Much of it was written by people whose livelihoods depends on these phenomena being viewed as a matter of addiction or as a matter of mental health. Therefore, it is biased toward a psychosexual pathology model of human erotic interests. "Paraphilia" may seem like a decent word, but it's part of the problem, as noted in the last paragraph of the intro: it medicalizes and pathologizes non-procreative sexual interests. I've tried to include some of the less pathologizing conceptualizations like lovemaps or "exotic becomes erotic," but the whole article remains imbued with the language of disorder and disease. Would you like to help us fix it? Jokestress (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress wrote "Much of it was written by people whose livelihoods depends on these phenomena being viewed as a matter of addiction or as a matter of mental health..." Is there an RS for that particular personal attack? Or is it just a personal attack? (For the record, I personally receive an entirely unionized salary that is based entirely upon seniority.) So, if not me, who are these "people" about whom Jokestress feels entitled to disregard WP:NPA? Jokestress would appear to have continence problem about dragging her long-standing, well-documented, off-wiki disputes here, should strike-out her comment, and stick to the facts.— James Cantor (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read it in terms of WP:NPA as no names were mentioned, and I have no idea who wrote "much of it". I saw this more in terms of WP:COI, although this was not stated explicitly. I didn't see an implied attack, but a comment about where people's interest might lie. This is a problem, because Wikipedia relies on the expertise of people who have a financial investment in some topics - but hopefully that is counterbalanced by others who have a different kind of investment in those topics. Mish (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same guy, different IP (I know, I know--get an account--I have 3 already--long story). Actually, I've read a number of edits from the both of you (and I think you too Mish), and I'm impressed by the knowledge and interest; and perhaps I come with a POV from things like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I suppose James Cantor's job is somewhat thankless given I've taken swipes at Cantor's profession, one that might actually be helping people--I admit great ignorance on some matters here ("some"?!?). There are those in the feild quite critical of the orthodoxy. James, have you heard of former Torontonian Paula Caplan (she seems to have targetted Freud) who wrote The Myth of Women's Masochism. These's also Thomas Szasz who wrote The Myth of Mental Illness which I got from the Category:Anti-psychiatry. I like RationalWiki's take on it, and it's take on $cientology.

As for the article. Hmmm. I was just checking it out from another article I was interested in. I'm more tempted to see if I could do one for Wikinfo and RationalWiki as one is not confined to established sources. If, after all, the eggheads have co-opted the word, defined by one decades ago before a number of things were discredited, and later seemingly re-defined by committe; there may be a level of futility in trying to improve it here--though this might defeatism on my part. Consider Agnosticism (Wiktionary). Huxley takes simple root words essentially meaning "don't know" and puts his ideosyncratic tag, "will never know" "can never know" and people who just don't know are left without a good word for their position. Maybe "Lovemap" will render paraphilia as obselete as GLTG rights did "Homophile."206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm more with Szasz now than when he was keynote speaker alongside Ronnie Laing at a conference I attended 25 years ago (the UK interpretation of his ideas led to a lot of people in mental institutions being dumped on the streets). I did some research into GLF & the anti-psychiatry movement a few years back. It is ironic what has happened since homosexuality was normalised, and by whom. But hey, this is not a forum, eh? Mish (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word paraphilia in Wikipedia

Many wikipedia pages address sexual practices and desires as "paraphilia", usually following the DSM-IV. I know, it's not part of this article, but it should be noted a paraphilia is ultimately just a "sexual preference that lacks political activists" (in a given society).

Even plain old eterosexual preferences may be viewed as a paraphilia, by individuals who live in a society where such practices and desires are condemned.

In ancient Athene, where "nurturing" young kids was considered pretty much normal for the adult male, copulating with one's own wife for the pleasure of both - and not jus as a duty - was seen as a Spartan aberration.

While the concept of paraphilia may have some merit, it is in the association between desires, social sustenaibility of them, personal ethics rules of one, and the distress caused by the conflict among these forces to the individuals experiencing these desires.

But, these are moving like floating sands.

At the peak of the AIDS scare, someone precognised a future where "Latex fetish" would have become the prevalent form of "sex entertainment"; Should have it occurred, the DSM would probably have wrote it off from the paraphilias to add "occasional sex without rubber protections" - I cant't dare to dream the name that such pathology would have got - instead...

Depending on the conditions - of the individual involved, his set of personal beliefs about sex, the surrounding society and its culture... - any form of sexual desire, or lack of it, may or may not be constructed as a paraphilia affecting one individual.

But this is hardly ever pointed out, or even noted, in all of the various pages that link to this, almost invariably pages "XXX" that starts with "XXX is a paraphilia" instead of "XXX is a sexual preference that may constitute the basis of a paraphilia, if the conditions identifying the state of paraphilia are met"...

Is there any way to let these concepts reach all those misusers of this term? 83.46.214.73 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sexology project talk page is probably a better place to discuss this - and you need to elaborate on which articles you regard as problematic in this respect. If the terminology itself is medical, and described as paraphilia in DSM or ICD, then not sure how you get round that. However, if the terminology is not there may be more scope. So, pedophilia is a paraphilia - but kiddy fiddler is a slang description for pedophile, so if there were an article on that expression, I'd expect some sort of reference to the medical jargon of 'pedophile', alongside the prison jargon of nonce, etc. - but would not expect to see a medical description for kiddy fiddling itself as a paraphilia. Ditto for fetishistic transvestism - I'd expect that to link to paraphilia, but if there were an article based on the expression panty wanker, I'd expect a link to transvestite, but wouldn't expect to see a medical description for panty wanking as a paraphilia per se. I'd say the same for most things like this. Mish (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Men who use prostitutes sex workers

Could somebody explain to me why men using ~~prostitutes~~ sex workers is not a paraphilia? My partner and I see people negotiating this kind of transaction most days, and don't understand why a form of sex that involves inanimate objects (money) is not classified in the same way as other forms of sex involving handcuffs and whips (for example). Mish (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex worker patrons aren't aroused by the money (inanimate), they are aroused by the human sex worker or by the idea of prostitution. "Paraphilia" is a conceptualization based on what arouses someone. Being attracted to a "normal" human is not a mental illness according to these guys, but being attracted to an "abnormal" human is a mental illness. If someone is too fat, or too short, or too disabled or too gender variant or whatever, being attracted to them is a paraphilia, one of the many -philias. The "expert" list is constantly expanding to include new kinds of attractions as diseases. These guys think it's prestigious to be the first one to come up with a new -philia. I agree the article could be clearer about what constitutes this disorder, since 90% of the article represents the clinical/disease POV, citing documents written by psychiatrists and what-not, as the IP editor points out. Jokestress (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mish, shouldn't this heading have "==" rather than "==="? :)
I figure most men who use prostitutes would rather no money be involved. There was, however, a scene in The Happy Hooker where a guy got off on the prostitute using finance and business talk, but again, that's the only one I know about. There was also an SCTV skit where one of the rich English aristocrats (was it played by Joe Flaherty ?)was getting it on with the maid, saying "I love you lower class girls. You are so lower class", there is also David Bowie's line "Hot tramp, I love you so", and there are women who occasionally fantasize about being prostitutes; but I doubt there will be a "prostitute-philia" named for the 3 former instances, and the latter is more a specific kind of fantasy than a sign of "prostitute-client-philia."205.189.194.250 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jokestress, I misunderstood the motivation. I was under the misapprehension that men had sex with sex workers because of the money, I had never considered they might want to have sex with them for nothing. I just assumed that the transaction was what made it sexually exciting, and that it was the idea of paying for sex (and the power in that) that motivated men to do this.Mish (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the customers are not aroused by the money itself (as in they get hot and bothered whenever someone flashes cash in front of them). I don't think anyone has jumped on "pornephilia" (attraction to sex workers) or "chremataphilia" (arousal to money) yet, so you could be an "expert" if you want by writing an article saying you discovered them! These "experts" are starting to expand the concept of "paraphilia" as a thoughtcrime, so attraction to the thought or idea of sex work might eventually be considered a "paraphilia" by these guys. I'll look for some sources that make it more clear that the arousal is to the object itself. Jokestress (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some people, the fact that they pay money helps them to objectify a sex worker. In that way, the sex worker is just another object, and they are paying for the use of it. They say what they want to do or have done, and after they receive that they leave with no thought of the sex worker afterword. If they were to do that often enough that it was the only way to get sexual arousal, it would be a paraphilia in a way, as the sex worker is just an object to them, not a person. Atom (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was thinking.

Wouldn't "pornophilia" (attraction to photographs of naked women in magazines) be more appropriate than "pornephilia" as a term? Although I guess that is not a paraphilia because it would cover a large proportion of half the population at some point in their lives. Mish (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term paraphilia when used by a pyschologist means that a person can not achieve arousal by any means other than the object, or objects (multiple paraphilia's). When used by "lay people", it is used much more loosely, in the same context as "kink". If someone is aroused by women's shoes, or by lingerie, for instance they may call it their kink, and use the term for the paraphilia associated with those to describe their interest. But in fact, those are only interests, not their sole means of becoming aroused. Atom (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, somebody who can only achieve arousal using porn, or by having sex with sex workers, or wearing frilly knickers - they have a paraphilia. But people who can achieve arousal with another human being without props, they don't have a paraphilia, regardless of whether they have sex with sex workers, use porn, wear frilly knickers, or have some other kink? So, a sex addict, who exclusively engages in sex with strangers - would that be a paraphilia, or does their having sex with a human object mean that is not paraphilia? Mish (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These guys? These "experts"? Who are we talking about? I'm on a first name basis with a great many of "them", and I can't think of any who would so classify those. (Ironically, I was quoted in The Globe and Mail last week, saying that another sexual interest (twins) wouldn't be diagnosed either.) So, who are all of these alleged folks drooling in anticipation of a new reason to diagnose something?

I can only ask Jokestress the same as I always do (and she ignores, as above)...what's the evidence? So far, I see only an (ironic) dependence on a stereotype: one of researchers as conservative, cold, unaware beings who couldn't possibly be motivated simply by curiousity to know the truth, and instead spent decades studying statistics because it would be an efficient means of oppression and world domination. Nerds would be our tyrants were it not for selfless postmodernists reminding us that the world doesn't exist....

But what's the evidence?

— James Cantor (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, say somebody (who is not themselves dwarfish) is only sexually aroused by dwarves (or I could use amputees here), that is not a paraphilia, yes? What about somebody who is exclusively attracted to women with a penis, or men with a vagina - whether pre-op transsexual, or lifestyle choice woman with penis (or man with a vagina) - that is not a paraphilia? Mish (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress was correct when she said that these talkpages are not forums for discussing the page's topics. Instead, let me direct you to a short article I just posted on my website which addresses exactly those issues: http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/page13.html — James Cantor (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, James. Not aware there is such a thing as the DSD community - perhaps this is why you have missed any response, there has been a response in that part of the intersex community which resists the use of DSD. Mish (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I have inserted the relevant source and text in the Intersex article. I have to admit some of COI, as I am quoted by the organisation concerned within its commentary. You will see that this position statement was issued over a month ago, James: http://oiiaustralia.com/organisation-intersex-international-position-statement-dsmv-draft-february-2010/ Mish (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Atom - the article text does not state that arousal is only elicited by such an object, only that such arousal is a dominant feature. So, according to the artcile, a man who enjoys frequently masturbating in frilly knickers is still classified as having a paraphilia even if he enjoys sexual intercourse with his wife without frilly knickers being involved. If the article is wrong on this count, perhaps somebody should edit it accordingly - otherwise we might be misleading men who like masturbating in frilly knickers yet enjoy healthy sex-lives with their partners that they have a psychiatric problem. Mish (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"These guys? These 'experts'? Who are we talking about?" I'm referring to a sub-group, figures in the past that define standards for today, and the committees that tend to create the frankensteins--as do other committees.

Ian Brown's done some sexual stuff where he's kinda condescended on people (though I admit, some of them didn't seem too sympathetic). As for a possible twin-philia, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. Consider Dead Ringers ("you call me Beverly, you call me Elliot," "gynecological instruments for mutant women" and all).

I will print and read your stuff, James.

"So far, I see only an (ironic) dependence on a stereotype: one of researchers as conservative, cold, unaware beings...Nerds would be our tyrants were it not for selfless postmodernists reminding us that the world doesn't exist...." Not so much that, but rather people who have spent years, likely decades, and a $100,000's to get into the guild, and who aren't easily going to be contradicted by people pointing out notable inconsistencies of their craft--such as foot fetishism's not being a paraphilia because the article says the tome refers only to non-human objects, S&M, sex with children, and non-consensual sex. I have a feeling that if someone went to Dr. James and said, "Doctor, I like women's feet, I like to go into the woods and J.O. on fallen logs, and am at my sexual best when there are 20 stuffed pigs in the room. Am I a perv, because my friends say I am.", I have a feeling that Dr. James would likely spend more time assuring him of his overal normality. But based on this article, that guy would be considered a sicko unless proven otherwise, and as, I'm sure, it's based on links to the "authoritive sources." The problem isn't so much the article or people like Dr. James, and maybe a few of his friends, who, say, if they ever got drunk on Orange Bicardi during a cook-out, might laugh at some of the pontifications of their predecessors. The article itself, in my view, seems destined to be at least partially flawed until the sources change.206.130.173.55 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mish "Could somebody explain to me why men using prostitutes sex workers is not a paraphilia?" ◄•Yes, it could be a paraphilia in some cases (but not always) some humans see and use other humans or sex workers as sex objects, so they actually have a sexual fetish for sex workers or humans in general.
Alusky (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this information usefull

I wonder if some of this info may be useful to spice this article a bit more?

"The Paraphilias Subworkgroup is proposing two broad changes that affect all or several of the paraphilia diagnoses, in addition to various amendments to specific diagnoses. The first broad change follows from our consensus that paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders. We are proposing that the DSM-5 make a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia by itself would not automatically justify or require psychiatric intervention. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others. One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder." From: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=191# in the "Rationale" tab.
Alusky (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bittergrey's use of this page as a battleground for his POV.

I believe a non-involved editor should review User:Bittergrey's deletion[1] and my reversion[2] of a long-standin EL on the mainpage. Bittergrey has re-engaged his on-going BATTLE against CAMH researchers (today, involving me:[3]), but was unsuccessful[4] and is now spreading his POV's here by invisibilizing deleting references to other CAMH researchers.— James Cantor (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]