Talk:Inhibited sexual desire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merging or Linking

"There are several good reasons to merge a page:

There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject. There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability. If a page is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.” [[1]]

I don’t see that arousal and desire are the same thing at all, more especially in men anyway (excuse me, I dont understand women, let alone their sexuality). Desire arises in the mind, while arousal is a physiological response. This distinction should be made clearer in the articles. And links used between the topics instead of merging. Desire disorders are psychological while arousal disorders are physical (e.g. erectile dysfunction disorder). The treatment for desire disorders is often psychotherapy or couples therapy. One would treat arousal disorders with medical treatments.

I haven't read anything more confusing in a while. You suggest several reasons why the two should be merged, and then go on to explain how you think that arousal and desire are not the same thing? Are there different people talking here? What's happening? Sign your comments with FOUR TILDES.Yeago 19:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] **

Parts of this page appear to more or less plagarize http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001952.htm

While this text is in the public domain, so this is legal, I think it may be fair to give credit in some way, shape, or form (other than the link at the bottom as further reference), assuming this is where the text came from.

Good call. It looks like entire sections of this article were taken from the NIH website. Although it is good information, it is somewhat unacceptable to simply copy and paste from other websites into the encyclopedia simply because the information is there; just because it is in the public domain doesn't mean we can just take it. I don't know much about copyright law, but as I understand it the purpose of the GFDL is to make the encyclopedia copyleft, so it is simply unacceptable to take copyrighted information and just insert it here as though it were free information.

"Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. By editing here, you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL."

Unless someone seriously edits this article soon, I suggest that perhaps it be removed entirely and written from scratch out of respect for the NIH article. Actions like this illigitimize the rest of the original work posted on the wikipedia, and are also disrespectful to the authors of the work being plagiarized. The NIH piece is an excellent article though, and could certainly be used as a template and/or primary citation.Shaggorama 05:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Although I admire the effort you put into this argument, there is no violation of any Wikipedia policy or copyright law. Public domain, by definition, has no recognizable "author" since it equally belongs to everyone. This is also the reason why it cannot be plagiarism. Please refer to Wikipedia:Public domain resources on Wikipedia's policy of pulling in content from public domain sources. Thanks for your care in making Wikipedia a more reliable information resource. Davodd 06:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone should re-write this page including some other sources, because it is an important topic. Also, it seems to exclude the possibility that someone might have sexual desire yet feel aversion to actually engaging in sex, due to many factors: a distaste for sex on a moral level, anxiety over one's body, anxiety about physical contact, moral dilemmas, abuse, as well as other causes that are mentioned. The text only seems to mention people without any desire, but ignores those who have desire but consiously or unconsiously (or both) repress their desires. Akseli 12:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The article also mostly covers individuals in relationships. -Acjelen 07:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

the article implies that ISD occurs only among people who are part of a romantic couple. should the diagnosis not also apply to individuals who are single and have no desire to be part of a romantic (and sexually intimate) couple?

[edit] There isn't a single citation in this article

It's quite long, but for all we know completely made up. --Pipedreambomb 01:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We ought to delete it and stalk and kill everyone who added to it, the bastards.Yeago 13:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Most everyting marked 'citation needed' is simply copied, word for word, from the NIH site. Until this article is expanded, though, referencing those lines seems futile. Tofof 22:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Is lack of sexual interest really a disorder?

That's what I ask, I was told asexuality was just as normal and healthy, if not healthier, than any other type of sexuality. Becuase sexuals yearn for a mate and crave sexual activity whilst asexuals are more likely to find a mate that lasts them their life.

It's a disorder if it's causing problems in the person's life. There's nothing wrong with having no interest in sex if, for instance, you are a Catholic priest or nun, or if you are in a relationship with someone who is also asexual. On the other hand, it would be a problem if you wanted to enjoy sex but just couldn't bring yourself to do it.
And what's this about people with sexual interest "yearning" and "craving?" Do you have anything even resembling data to show that sexual desire is unhealthy, or that asexuals have better or longer-lasting romantic relationships, as you claim? --Psychojosh13 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)