Talk:Erotic hypnosis

message: Neologism? A cult word? Is this material better covered elsewhere? --Wetman 00:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neologism 

message: I was thinking that actually. In most of the online community the phrase 'Hypnofetishism' is not used as the main word. Is there any way to rename the topic?
Although the Hypnofetishism is sometimes associated with erotic behivour, the links are slighty baised as it only covers erotic hypnosis. Futher more, the "Hypnosis in media" link has been removed as it is now missing. I will try to find MC fanfiction of a more descent nature, however i suggest other users do the same as it is difficult to filter the adult sites from the normal ones -Dynamo_ace
I would say that the main reason that adult sites are hard to filter from normal here, is that the very word "fetish", relates to specific experiences and objects intended to either initiate or enhance sexual arousal.  In fact the clinical definition of 'fetish' implies a psychoerotic pathology defined by the fact that without the object/situation of the fetish being present, no sexual response can be obtained by the 'sufferer'.  Therfore would it be better off in Psychopathology, Deviant Behavior, a new section called Hypno-BDSM/Hypno-sex, or Strange Erotic Practices is my question? -Hypnosystemsuk
Well, I am sure that many people who enjoy erotic hypnosis do not have a hypnosis fetish in the DSM-IV sense of the word.  Therefore, I don't think it would be a good idea to move the entry to psychopathology.  I also think the DSM-IV is moving away from classifying things using the perjorative language of "Deviant Behavior."  I suggest calling the entry "erotic hypnosis" and consolidating the hypnofetishim/hypnofetishist listing under that entry, with a mention that some people are fetishists, but some just enjoy it as another variation.
Dana (dana2k_us@yahoo.com)
:Precisely.  It's inappropriate for wikipedia to insert subtle editorializing, such as categorizing certain sexual practises as normal and others as deviant behavior.  It's not our place to judge that.  NPOV is crucial when dealing with off-the-beaten-path activities and behaviors.  -Kasreyn 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this better covered elsewhere? 

message: Large parts of this article are directly copied from Hypnosisinmedia.com, as well as other Wikipedia articles, so currently the entire section History (including Hypnosis on the Silver Screen) is just a scrapbook of text taken from other sources.
No idea what a synopsis of The Manchurian Candidate is doing in an article about hypnofetishism either, the article does seem to go off topic occasionally. 
172.129.150.68 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much copied text 

message: Editor Lotusduck has repeatedly engaged in mass deletes of significant portions of this article, leaving it pretty well barren.  I call it overediting, that materially diminishes the quality of the article and has left it largely barren and empty, describing almost nothing of what it intends.
I'm not critiquing the necessity of the original research and unverified claims qualifiers and requirements for articles.  In the case of this article, however, we are caught in a destructive Catch-22.  Much of the citations usable will be critiqued as advertising or somesuch.  Absent cites, edit puritans like Lotusduck come in with their wrecking ball, without adding any better material or improving the article.  There needs to be a compromise.
Over the next few days, absent any better ideas from anyone else, I'm looking to add back in material that's been lost in successive edits, and working to find reasonable cites and sources.  We should have a time frame, for material that is brought back in, over which it can and should be left there and worked on to bring it into compliance before anyone gets all hot and bothered again and engages in more mass-deletes.
I'm hoping that we can civilly work through this and constructively improve this article without acrimony.  I want to avoid an edit war.
::Could you give a good list of what sites and sources would be approved of? I've personally found the Realm of Bliss podcast to be extremely helpful in an informational way on the Erotic Hypnosis front. (12.207.82.157 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destructive overediting 

message: About a year ago I came to this article to get a better grasp of the public perception of erotic hypnosis and left more confused than anything. Wikipedia is a wonderful forum for the dissemination of information, but I have great concerns about commercialism in some of the articles that I have seen.
When I decided that it would be interesting to try to contribute, I began to understand some of the problem. I literally searched for everything I could find on the internet about the subject. I checked with my library and even at Ohio State. While there are countless hypno-erotic commercial websites, there are only two serious published works on the subject, Peter Master's and Michael Scott's (no relation to the guy on the office, I emailed him and asked).
As a polite follow up to my rather goofy question, Mr. Scott was able to send me several articles on the subject of hypnotic exploration of sexual dysfunction and rape treatment and counseling, articles written for sex therapists about using hypnosis to induce sexual arousal and release inhibitions, but even those didn't address the subject of popular culture erotic hypnosis. The clinical material dances around the subject (even, surprisingly, the works written for sex therapists).
Finding only two credible sources for information, both more or less being how-to guides, I went back to the internet for one last look and, much to my disappointment, I found that hypnosisarticlesdirectory.com had taken down the one decent public article that had been available (censorship? morality concerns?). Frustrating !
I have been a vocal critic of under-referenced articles here and elsewhere. I have harped about articles citing only internet sources of information. No more ! 
I apologize to all of the authors who I have complained about, and in one case to, regarding their under-referenced works. If you have constructed a well written and informative article I will be, as I should have been, thankful for both your information and effort. I realize now (slow learner, I admit) that many subjects, especially ones new to the public eye (like Erotic Hypnosis) simply may not have more information available to be referenced. I suppose that this is one of the best uses for Wikipedia, making information available about new cutting edge topics, and I apologize for having missed this important point.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneWrite (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much confusion, not enough information... 

message: "Recreational" is too broad of a term, since it would logically include stage hypnosis.
We need to compress them in articles, though, since there's a lot in common: stage hypnosis and erotic hypnosis are different than therapeutic hypnosis, and they're most often done for kicks (recreationally). However, erotic hypnosis and therapeutic hypnosis both more often involve intentions of a lasting change. There is an intersection called "sex therapy", which can be very, very helpful to people.
But but but but but PLEASE, PLEASE INCLUDE WARNINGS OF UNTRUSTWORTHY HYPNOTISTS. There are literally phone-sex hypnotists who trap people in sexual hypnosis, using it to financially dominate them. ...though, there's people who WANT to be financially dominated, but yeah, this is creepy territory. Don't let these Wikipedia pages become infamous for baiting people the way the one for auto-erotic asphyxiation did.
Lastly, there's a LOT of recreational hypnosis websites out there, so they should be in a separate page or something.
MoogleEarth (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the heck is going on with this article? 

message: Despite the apparent content fork, I'm content to leave the move unchallenged for the simple reason that Wesley Pimentel is correct in his statement that this article almost exclusively focuses on erotic hypnosis which is not, strictly speaking, a synonym for recreational hypnosis. I've made changes to the lead to note the differences and removed the small bit of remaining material that had nothing to do with erotic hypnosis. A better solution would have been to expand the recreational hypnosis article to include other forms of hypnosis, but perhaps with the stage hypnosis article already in place, that wouldn't have been viable. – Robin Hood  (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Contrary to widespread belief, Faffy is not just the name of a duck. Many pieces of writing might be called "Faffy". This Wiki on Erptic Hypnosis is one. Its like waffly, vague, contains numerous contradictions and looks like it was written by several people simultaneously  wearing blindfolds. I added a specific item about BDSM. Then considered re-phrasing the intro. But decided to be sensible, I would re-write the whole thing. I wont do that as a newbie here. But if asked I would offer an attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankunft (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 July 2015‎
:Your best bet is to create a sandbox with a suggested re-write (e.g., User:Ankunft/Erotic hypnosis). Once you're done, post back to the page so anyone can go look at it and then figure out where to go from there. Also, on "talk" pages, you should sign anything you post with four tildes (~~~~). – Robin Hood  (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faffy. 

message: I have spent considerable time in the recreational hypnosis community and I've never seen this term used to describe NLP or conditioning. It is typically only used to describe "waking hypnosis" and I believe that the term "hypnosis without trance" was popularized by someone making paid hypnosis tutorial videos and demonstrations named James Tripp (who does not use the term to describe NLP or Conditioning either, although he claims he incorporates NLP into his technique). I removed the relevant line from the article, I hope that's okay 69.41.6.191 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hypnosis Without Trance" 

message: Seriously? It's not like colleges give degrees in erotic hypnosis. Unfortunately.
184.53.48.204 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "…needs attention from an expert on the subject" 

message: I have removed a number of very niche or not directly relevant books from Further Reading. The two that remain are self published, but they are substantial (over 200 pages) and have at least some reviews on Amazon.com and at least a 4.0 average rating.
BrightVamp (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading 

message: In the past five years there has been increasing coverage of erotic hypnosis by independent media sources, as I refer to above, so I have used them as the basis for a major edit with claims about how it is practiced backed up with citations. I have removed some claims I could not find support for. My intention is for this to be a first step of moving this article in the direction of such fleshed out, informative articles about niche sexual subcultures as Robot fetishism and Omorashi. BrightVamp (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit based on independent sources 

message: On July 28, Mesmer7 replaced the references in the lead section, which included an independently published book, a scientific article, and an online magazine article, with references to two personal blog posts published on hypnoticdreams.com. Since then 69.14.154.236 has three times reverted back to that version. Although I don't think the justification provided ("This page has referenced the article on hypnoticdreams.com since 2007. It was one of the earliest articles on the subject ever published") is a strong enough reason for an exception to the rule against user generated content, WP:UGC, let's discuss it, 69.14.154.236, and maybe we can find some additional WP:RS references for the points you feel strongly about including in the lead.
BrightVamp (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in 2007, I wrote one of the first versions of this wikipedia entry. When a troll [repeatedly] gutted it, I moved the text to my web site, and added a reference to it here. That reference stood from 2007 until 2020, when vice.com replaced it with citations to their very poorly written articles. HypnoticDreams.com is one of the longest standing web sites dedicated solely to erotic hypnosis (more than 22 years). This article is one of the earliest on the subject, and probably the oldest one still available on the web. Mesmer7 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mesmer7, regardless of the value of the information it provides, and its age, I'm afraid as a personal blog (and shop) hypnoticdreams.com doesn't meet the Wikipedia standard for a reliable source. The citations this edit replaces in the lead are to an independently published book, magazine article, and scientific article. Unless you have another argument for why Wikipedia policy shouldn't apply in this case (I can see possibly making an argument if there were literally no independently published articles, but there are plenty) the previous citations should stand. As the creator of hypnoticdreams.com, please also take a look at WP:COI and the cautions against citing your own self-published material, particularly if it could drive traffic to a retail website. BrightVamp (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

text:  Mesmer7, I have left you a message on your Talk page regarding compliance with Wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines. While your comments about the content of this article are welcome here on the Talk page, the best practice for you is not to edit the article directly, but instead to use the  template here on the Talk page when you see something in the article that needs changing to start a discussion about your issue, and allow another editor make the actual change to the article if there is consensus in favor of your requested change. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

text:  I've also added  to the Talk header for transparency. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of references in the lead section 

message: Are the references in this edit a better choice for the lead than the previous set of references?  BrightVamp (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about references in the lead 

message: * Procedural close you haven't talked this out yet; this Rfc is premature.  See discussion. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: First, it's not clear that WP:RFCBEFORE is satisfied and this RFC may be premature. The discussion above with only three messages and two editors is hardly an intractable discussion that has hit a wall after endless discussion among many editors and is beyond any resolution without an Rfc. The previous discussion #Choice of references in the lead section should be continued before you start an Rfc. You may withdraw this Rfc if you wish by simply removing the  template below the section header.
Secondly, if and when you start one, can you please be explicit, and list in the Rfc the "before" and "after" references, so we know what we are voting for? Also, references are not required in the lead, so you should include a third option of "just have the references in the body", which is a very common case. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Don't feel strongly enough on the topic to submit a split request, but I feel it would be better if the two topics were separated. Anyone else have any thoughts? Eldomtom2 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating erotic hypnosis from mind control fetishism?