Talk:List of paraphilias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Collapsing paraphilias and fetishes

  • No Merge. Paraphilia may be innate. Fetishes may be situational. forestPIG 14:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you back that up? According to the DSM, fetishes are paraphilias.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There may be some common ground, but my own idea is that the use of a different term somewhat fulfils my argument. A DSM defined paraphilia could be noted as such - even in the context of it generally being seen as a fetish, but should be kept apart from attraction to stuffed toys et cetera. Probable or demonstrable nature or nurture categories are probably better than medical classifications, at least for an encyclopedia. forestPIG 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo Paraphilias

This list should be broken up into established (medical or wide usage) and neo/pseudo paraphilias. forestPIG 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dadophilia? Vladanophilia?

  • Dadophilia (vladanophilia): sexual attraction to only a single person, named after a boy from Serbia (similar to stalking).

I like to think I'm pretty well read on this topic, and I've never seen those words before. Nor does anything come up in a google search or my medical dictionary. Do you have a reference for it?
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering the IP's edit record (e.g. [1] I think it's safe to assume the edit is vandalism.Sjö (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


Quite possible. I just thought it would be appropriate to assume good faith and to invite the editor to justify the edit rather than merely to delete it without comment.
While I have your attention, is there a vehicle for inviting folks to start inserting good sources for these terms? I've added ones I have easy access to, but many are rather obscure.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)