Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
CThis 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.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Psychiatry C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).


I feel the phrase "Homosexuality, now widely known to be a normal variant of human sexuality" is incorrect. IMHO, the word variant is a problem. It should read "Homosexuality, now widely known to be normal human sexuality". By adding the word "variant," the sentence makes homosexuality something beyond the norm and therefore, not normal. Spiel (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eh? "Variant" is used because homosexuality is just one form of sexuality. It is not "normal human sexuality" for everyone. The only way I would go along with your wording is if "a" was retained and "form of" was used so that the text reads as "a normal form of human sexuality." I suggested "form of" because just saying "a normal human sexuality" seems off grammar-wise.
On a side note: Just days ago, "considered" was used until an IP changed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for "the norm," I doubt that homosexuality will ever be considered "the norm." Society is heteronormative and it very likely always will be. But science-wise, scientific consensus is that homosexuality is a normal form/variant of human sexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Operant conditioning[edit]

Shouldn’t this page include the possibility of resolving Paraphilias through operant conditioning or classical conditioning? Byulwwe (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-Susan Nolen-Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce and broaden the paraphilic arousal.

This page itself deal with a form of positive reinforcement.

Shouldn’t it also deal with “positive punishment” for example? Byulwwe (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It could, but we need a source for it. Preferably a medical textbook or peer-reviewed journal article. Have one?Legitimus (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clown porn[edit]

As the (very small) article is due to be deleted, copying here in case it is of use:

Clown porn is an acknowledged, burgeoning[1], fetish with females 33% more likely to search for it than males.[2]

Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "After The Killer Clown Craze, There's Been An Increase In Searches For Clown Porn" (by Ben Henry at, 15 October 2016)
  2. ^ "Apparently Clown Porn Is A Thing And It's Getting Way More Popular" (By Adrienne Jones of, last updated October 15, 2016
Sources aren't that good, can see why it was deleted. Nothing WP:MEDRS here. Crossroads -talk- 05:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove "sexual perversion" and "sexual deviation" from alternative names and move them to Terminology section[edit]

Nowadays "sexual perversion" and "sexual deviation" only have an historical and cultural value (this can also be deduced from the corresponding source), so they need to be contextualized. Moreover there's also a strong negative preconception behind these names and this makes even more important to give them a context. Digressivo (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it'd be okay to move those terms out of the lead. Acidsetback (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. "Perversion" and "deviation" are both value-laden words, and they also don't really seem to match the latest psychiatric consensus laid out by the DSM-5. (Though I'm not really qualified to say that part.) FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also agree. In the flip side, deviation does have a valid, non value-laden sense in statistics, but that is not how it was being used here, so may also safely be removed to Terminology. Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To quickly follow-up here, as part of depathologizing this page (as is consistent with the DSM-5 and ICD-11) I have removed both of these terms from the lead. However, they are still mentioned in the history sub-section. Arguably there is more than can be done here, but it's a start. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prevalence of paraphilias[edit]

This article mentions almost every paraphilia so prevalence of them is appropriate. The Epidemiology section has the sentence "Sexual masochism has been found to be the most commonly observed paraphilia in women, with approximately 1 in 20 cases of sexual masochism being female" so including prevalence of zoophilia or pedophilia is equal. Andythegrump seems to be hunting my edits and only permitting what he desires to be in articles. Foorgood (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can simply add the sentence, "the accuracy of his report has been disputed by some" JUST like it's stated in the Zoophilia article. You must stop employing double standard.Foorgood (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point, given that you have repeatedly been told that Kinsey's estimate have been disputed, your insistence that this particular book (why this one? why are you spamming it everywhere) be cited in the way it is looks more and more like intentional disruption. Furthermore, you grossly misrepresented what the second source, on pedophilia, actually said. You are clearly out of your depth on such subject matter - leave it to people who have a clue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your personal attacks won't amount to a basis for this informations exclusion. Your griping against a Bloomsbury book which is a top source that is welcome and used all over Wikipedia is not a basis for it's exclusion. What you are doing is employing a DOUBLE STANDARD for Kinsey's report- you allow it on the Zoophilia page but not here with the SAME DISCLAIMER stating "the accuracy of his report has been disputed by some". What you are doing is only accepting what you want in the articles and not allowing others to add detailed improvements.Foorgood (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not 'griping against a Bloomsbury book'. I'm griping against a Wikipedia contributor who Google-mines random stuff, and then shoe-horns it into multiple articles after having it explained that Kinsey's estimates have been widely disputed. And that the dispute needs better explanation than a mere assertion that it exists. What exactly is your obsession with this one source? Why are you so insistent on citing it when there are better sources available? If it weren't for the fact that you clearly haven't read it, I'd assume there was a conflict of interest... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've recently already overwhelmingly won a top reputable source dispute here:'s_WRD/WCD/ARDA_&_PT's_GRF). You are continuing to gripe about a source that is AS VALID as your source on the Zoophilia page (source #9) which discusses the percentages so why do you continue to remove this top source that discusses the total amounts?! That is a DOUBLE STANDARD. Wikipedia is about the accumulation of various reliable sources not choosing just one that you like and removing others. It is already stated that it is disputed but that didnt stop you from mentioning the percentages on the Zoophilia page. You are only allowing what your opinion prefers while simply telling me to "get lost" and "get an F***ing clue". I will not stoop to your grumpy level.Foorgood (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring about prevalence of paraphilias[edit]

Please work constructively together to determine which materials and sources are appropriate for these pages. Disparaging other editors and assuming bad faith is poor form. If the sources do not belong in this article, then make a case for that using Wikipedia editorial guidelines. And just one more time... please don't bite other editors and scare them away. Nobody owns Wikipedia articles. We're expected to work collaboratively with each other to make improvements. It would be best to stop the edits and reverts and calmly discuss the sources and refer to Wikipedia guidelines to determine whether they are relevant to this page, and whether the sources are reliable. It would be best to develop a consensus if possible. Hist9600 (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I want advice on contributing to Wikipedia, I'll ask for it from someone who's made more than a couple of hundred edits. And knows that starting a new thread on an article talk page to engage in such patronising behaviour is in of itself arguably a misuse of the talk page. If Foorgood had followed WP:BRD we'd be discussing this on the talk page of the article the issue first arose, instead of having it spread over multiple articles, and spilled over into an entirely inappropriate call for 'dispute resolution' concerning an article where there had been no attempt to discuss the issue at all. So here's my advice (from a contributor who's been around a whole lot more than you) - before you offer advice, look for context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to talk about your behavior here because it's inappropriate, and you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the editing process on Wikipedia. You are one editor, and you do not get to overrule anyone else by default. In fact, WP:SEEKHELP states that a third opinion is appropriate and helpful in a dispute between two editors. The next step in the process is to work constructively towards a consensus. Throwing your weight around by yourself and belittling other editors is petty and aggressive behavior that violates WP policies on a fundamental level. You should always assume good faith, and never bite the newcomers. The issue here that I see is not primarily the content being added, but the blatant aggression and edit warring. Consider comments like this:

Get a fucking clue. You are reporting the disputed results of 70-year-old research on zoophilia as objective data, and misrepresenting what the source on pedophilia actually says. Go write about Pokemon instead.

Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:CONS to read more about civility in the editing process, and how editor consensus provides a useful basis for collaboration. For example:

Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.

And achieving consensus:

Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.

Hist9600 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have an issue regarding my behaviour, raise it at WP:ANI. I am not going to engage further here, since this discussion is entirely off-topic concerning the proper subject of this noticeboard - matters concerning the content of the Paraphilia article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hist9600, thank you for pointing out Andythegrumps extreme behavior. Do you agree that prevalence figures from a Bloomsbury published book should be allowed here unlike Andy who only wants to allow what he wants across all wiki articles? He also reverted other recent data here (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really have a strong opinion about the source off-hand. I guess some things to consider... are similar paraphilias treated in the same way on the page? Or is the material overly specific and incorrectly emphasizing that one paraphilia in a way that is inappropriate for the scope of this page? Also, is the information accurate, and is this representative of the latest research? These are some things to consider when adding content and using sources. Historical numbers may be useful in some cases, if appropriate context is given to qualify the statements. Hist9600 (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kinsey's research is 70 years old. The validity of his data has been the subject of considerable debate. And every discussion of his results I've seen expressed his findings as a percentage of the relevant population, not an absolute figure. There is no reason whatsoever to be quoting wildly-outdated and questionable arbitrary numbers here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page can have a prevalence section where studies on paraphilia in general as well as specific ones can be added. Total estimates are given for many subjects across Wikipedia because they are still helpful for readers to grasp demographics. Foorgood (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So which sources are you proposing be cited for current prevalence data (as either a percentage or a total estimate)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that rhetorical? The Bloomsbury source has the percentages and total estimates but you can add as many other studies with reliable sources as you want of course.Foorgood (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is not rhetorical. I asked for current prevalence data, not estimates from a 70-year-old study. And I am not proposing to add anything. You are, and I'm asking what sources you are proposing to cite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You allow the 70 year old study on the Zoophilia page but not here? Double standard. There are not many studies done frequently that's why Kinsey is used because as the Bloomsbury source says "it is still the most comprehensive". If you find recent info on paraphilias you can add them as well. I have found 2 sources including a director of the Humane Society reporting membership on a beastiality forum but you don't like that either.Foorgood (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not interested in engaging in this pointless round-in-circles debate any more. Expect to be reported at WP:ANI in the next 24 hours, with a request that you be topic-banned from all articles concerning human sexuality, on competence grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

non-normative relations to the Oedipal complex.[edit]

please change this odd phrasing! doesn't make sense to me. 2A02:8109:B6BF:80BC:39D4:1050:CC50:2D5E (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Paraphilias" vs "paraphilic disorders" and the depathologization of atypical sexual interests.[edit]

Both the DSM-5 (2013) and the ICD-11 (2022) have taken key steps to depathologize paraphilias by drawing a clear distinction between paraphilic/atypical sexual interests and "paraphilic disorders".

The quick-and-dirty summary in both cases being that simply having a paraphilia is not indicative of poor mental health and does not constitute a psychiatric disorder, and that the term "paraphilic disorder" should be used to refer to a specific circumstance in which the existence of a paraphilia causes significant distress or the potential for other harm.

But as things stand right now, this article is heavily medicalized, loosely using terms like "perversion", "disorder", "diagnosis", "management", "epidemiology", and generally presenting the concept of paraphilia as a medical disorder.

In light of those updated international psychiatric guidelines, as well as wikipedia editing guidelines about neutrality and accuracy, I'd like to suggest that this page be edited to clearly reflect the current psychiatric consensus, the differences between "paraphilias" and "paraphilic disorders" (which can probably make up its own section) and the general social/medical movement towards depathologization of atypical sexual interests. FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though there probably isn't enough content to justify doing so right now, I want to amend this suggestion to also suggest that we eventually break the section on "paraphilic disorders" into its own article (which can be appropriately summarized and linked to here, of course.) FuwaFuwaDL (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]