Talk:Paraphilia: Difference between revisions
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger (→"Perversion": new section) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Not sure that...== | ==Not sure that...== | ||
All images of a p-graphic nature are always voyeurism; I think that the way a lot of it is depicted is by intentionally creating some kind of visual link between the subject(s) (particularly with body and facial language) and the viewer whereas voyeurism I think is mostly viewing with no link (there are no suggestions between the subject(s) and the viewer(s)). --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 08:12, 27 December 2007 (CST) | All images of a p-graphic nature are always voyeurism; I think that the way a lot of it is depicted is by intentionally creating some kind of visual link between the subject(s) (particularly with body and facial language) and the viewer whereas voyeurism I think is mostly viewing with no link (there are no suggestions between the subject(s) and the viewer(s)). --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 08:12, 27 December 2007 (CST) | ||
== "Perversion" == | |||
For better or worse, like it or not, most of humanity condemns these behaviors as so many "perversions." There are many exceptions, of course, but as a generalization, this is a fact that is obviously important to the overall topic, and we should not shy away from reporting it. It continues to shape how we think and write about the paraphilias. So I was amazed that the word "perversion" did not appear once in the article--that strikes me as a very unfortunate kind of political correctness. Mind you, neither in the article nor here on this talk page do I intend to take a stand on the question whether paraphilias are "wrong" (of course, I do think certain of them are not just wrong but frequently evil: rape and child molestation). I'm just saying that we are engaging in a kind of unnecessary self-censorship in failing to mention the obvious fact that much of humanity does regard them as either wrong or morally questionable or worthy of shame and ridicule. Also, the mere fact that psychologists treat them clinically, if they are pathological, should not stop us from reporting how others regard them. | |||
Also, as a definition, "a sexual desire or behaviour that involves an nonreproductive source of gratification" implies that homosexuality is a paraphilia. Yet it is not listed. Either the definition should be revised, or homosexuality should be listed. I leave it to you to decide which is best; I don't know how the term "paraphilia" is usually applied so I can't tell you. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:09, 25 September 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:09, 25 September 2008
Not sure that...
All images of a p-graphic nature are always voyeurism; I think that the way a lot of it is depicted is by intentionally creating some kind of visual link between the subject(s) (particularly with body and facial language) and the viewer whereas voyeurism I think is mostly viewing with no link (there are no suggestions between the subject(s) and the viewer(s)). --Robert W King 08:12, 27 December 2007 (CST)
"Perversion"
For better or worse, like it or not, most of humanity condemns these behaviors as so many "perversions." There are many exceptions, of course, but as a generalization, this is a fact that is obviously important to the overall topic, and we should not shy away from reporting it. It continues to shape how we think and write about the paraphilias. So I was amazed that the word "perversion" did not appear once in the article--that strikes me as a very unfortunate kind of political correctness. Mind you, neither in the article nor here on this talk page do I intend to take a stand on the question whether paraphilias are "wrong" (of course, I do think certain of them are not just wrong but frequently evil: rape and child molestation). I'm just saying that we are engaging in a kind of unnecessary self-censorship in failing to mention the obvious fact that much of humanity does regard them as either wrong or morally questionable or worthy of shame and ridicule. Also, the mere fact that psychologists treat them clinically, if they are pathological, should not stop us from reporting how others regard them.
Also, as a definition, "a sexual desire or behaviour that involves an nonreproductive source of gratification" implies that homosexuality is a paraphilia. Yet it is not listed. Either the definition should be revised, or homosexuality should be listed. I leave it to you to decide which is best; I don't know how the term "paraphilia" is usually applied so I can't tell you. --Larry Sanger 15:09, 25 September 2008 (CDT)