Talk:Autoeroticism

untitled

Would narcissism be considered a form of autoeroticism? Perhaps it's a stretch, but it seems to fit... Of course, I would have to add the explicit clarification that narcissism would be a sub group of the various types of autoeroticisms.--BlackGriffen

I don't know if it's a form of autoeroticism, but it's certainly related. Maybe a mention and a link. --Dmerrill

You're thinking of autophilia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1FC6:1A00:F48B:B160:CE4C:D3E2 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Merger

• Don't Merge: Autoeroticism and autosexuality are entirely different things. Autoeroticism can occurs in a homo-, hetero-, bisexual orientation, etc. Autosexuality is usually (but not always) a orientation parallel to those aforementioned. --Zippanova 19:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• I second that: I'd say why, but I'd be repeating what's been said above. MessedRocker 03:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Don't merge: one article is about the practice of self-gratification, the other is about a preference for self-gratification. These topics are only similar on the surface. --Icarus 09:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oops, I didn't know there was a discussion going on before I merged, until it ws brought to my attention by Icarus. However, autoeroticism is a physical manifestation of autosexuality. Obviously, if most want to de-merge, then go ahead. Brisvegas 07:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems pretty irrelevant to have autofellatio linked to there and discussed as requiring flexibility, etc. or at least, somewhat sexist. no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.53.189 (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Undoing this consensus-free merge

Hi folks. I have undone this old merge, which seems to have been carried out without consensus.

Autoeroticism is stimulating yourself sexually. Almost everyone does this, and almost none of the people who do it are subject to the unusual paraphilia of autosexuality, which means being attracted to yourself sexually. Your average teenage boy thinks about a girl, feels attracted to her, and then beats off. He doesn't say "Oh my dear right hand, I love you so!" except in dirty jokes! DanB†DanD 01:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge status as of May 2007

Late last month somebody put up another merge template thing, though did not mention it here. Well...

• Don't merge: They are different things. It would be like merging fruit and apple.

This doesn't appear very active though, and considering it's been debated before, I don't think anybody should be merging this. Cheers, Rothery 08:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think masturbation is a type of autoeroticism but it doesn't work the other way around. Yonatan ^talk 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite a double negative

Intro, para 4, line 3: The potential for injury or even death that exists while engaging in the partnered versions of these fetishes (the erotic asphyxiation and bondage, respectively) becomes drastically increased due to the isolation and lack of assistance...." How does having a partner increase risk of "injury or even death"? From all that I have read, quite the opposite is true: a partner will prevent injury if the play goes beyond the bounds of safety, and will prevent death if the play is injury. The linked ref ([1]}does not point to anything specific so I cannot argue against it just on language. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I caught that too. I think it was just a mistake, I fixed it. --71.84.126.174 (talk) 04:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely random inclusion

Look at the end of the roman catholic church deal. After explaining that the Catholic Church believes masturbation to be immoral, it suddenly cuts to saying that women can masturbate using different means, and then the paragraph ends abruptly. Delete? -CommieComrade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.91.97 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It was caused by this edit. Graham87 12:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"though it is clear that most men would engage in this practice if they could"

i removed this part because is unnutral and sexist.82.22.152.255 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autoeroticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202153936/http://www2.hu-berlin.de:80/sexology/IES/index-subjects.html to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/index-subjects.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)