Talk:Acrotomophilia

message: "Identical amputations on both sides of the body are prefaced by a "D": DAK would describe a double above-knee amputee. These are also known as "bilateral" amputations, so BAK would be equally valid."
What if there are amputations on both sides, but they are not identical? For example, Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot in Iraq, lost both of her legs when the aircraft was shot down, but she lost much more of one leg than the other (one AK, the other either BK or KD). Is there a term to describe that situation? 4.243.149.188 22:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no single term.  Which leg is AK?  Assuming her right leg is AK, she would be RAK/LBK or RAK/LKD. --BlueNight 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Asymmetrical amputation

message: Is it really appropriate to use Heather Mills McCartney as an example?  It seems in poor taste to use her as an example subject of fetishist terminology, just because she's lost a (partial) limb.  The terminology explanation seems perfectly clear without resorting to an example anyway. 202.45.99.190 12:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had typed a long, involved answer talking about Miz Mills-McCartney's anti-landmine activism making her an ideal celebrity example, then giving the alternate example of Porn actress Long Jean Silver, whose claim to fame is an incomplete amputation of one leg resulting in what appears to be a peg leg shaped like a phallus.  Then I realized only one answer is necessary:  we're talking here about amputee fetishism.  Any discussion of taste is moot from the beginning.  --BlueNight 07:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: However, if there's an example you think would be in better taste, such as Aimee Mullins, by all means, edit the article to reflect that.  I chose The former Mrs. McCartney because she is in the public mind as an amputee, not because of a tabloid interest. --BlueNight 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of example? 

message: "Previously rare, acrotomophilia was first recognised in clinics as commonplace in the western world in the early 1990s."
Wrong. Firstly, acromotophilia is still rare. The number of scientific articles ever published on the phenomenon probably doesn't exceed a dozen. If you claim it is commonplace you must provide evidence . Secondly, a. was first recognised as early as the 1890s !
"It is thought that this was caused by the proliferation of the Internet, which allowed already predisposed individuals to gain access to video footage and still media of amputees in situations conducive to arousal"
Highly Questionable. Most acromotophiles say their attraction is deeply rooted, and that it has its origins in childhood. The internet merely enabled many to overcome their inhibition to talk about it to others.
"As these individuals learned what could be found sexually stimulating and which forms of physical deformities would sate their desires, they would then seek amputee-partners or situations where amputees could be observed during a sexual act."
Sounds like a myth to me.
Acromotophiles seeked amputee partners long before the advent of the internet. Even today most don't "learn" their paraphilia from looking at photos and video. The paraphilia normally sets in at puberty.
I'm afraid i'll have to delete the lot. 
How apt that this page is a stub.  BlueNight 01:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk content merged from [[Acrotomophilia]]: 

message: Link to article with information about acrotomophilia: http://www.depression-guide.com/acrotomophilia.htm
I don't know if anyone can use this short article as a reference to support statements made on the page, but perhaps it's a start. 4.243.149.188 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acrotomophilia

message: I added a link and then read the article. Oh, dear! It tells us very little, is muddled, and is full of arcane inside-speak of interest to about eight people per million, at a guess. No attributions are made, and few are indeed possible. I submit that it is a waste of bandwidth. Livedvalid 22:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you severely truncate the article, leaving only a shapely stub, you would make a lot of people very happy.  (snicker)  --BlueNight 07:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be deleted or seriously truncated? 

message: This article is about the paraphilias "Acrotomophilia" and "Apotemnophilia" as stated in the article. It is a folly to describe them as fetishes. 194.112.32.101 13:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paraphilias, not fetishes

message: This section seems strangely out of place, as the rest of the article deals with the individuals' attraction to amputees rather than individuals' desire to BECOME amputees.  BIID is an entirely separate (albeit somewhat related) topic.  I believe this section should be removed from this article.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed?... it's referenced. Redblueball (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

text: On further reflection - I see your point - the article attempts to describe both states while we already have the apotemnophilia article; thereby making either apotemnophilia redundant or Amputee fetishism too general. I think the clinical nomenclature should be followed here - so i'll move the Amputee fetishism article to the Acrotomophilia namespace and edit the sense of the subjects accordingly. Redblueball (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical Issues (and move/disambiguate to Acrotomophilia) 

message: Follows the original text thereof. Hayley>>(talk) 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed terminology section 

message: Why does the first sentence say "Acrotomophilia refers to sexual interest in amputees ..." (my emphasis)?
I mean, the article is about acrotomophilia and not about the word acrotomophilia. Am I right? :-) --109.189.98.138 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "refers to" 

message: Some old page history that used to be at the title "Acrotomophilia" can now be found at Talk:Acrotomophilia/Old history. The page history that used to be at the title of this talk page can now be found at Talk:Acrotomophilia/Old talk history. Graham87 06:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old page history 

message: The following sentence makes zero sense to me: 
* "A Jungian explanation for the fetish is that it stems from a desire to resolve discontinuities in the collective subconscious by means of distorting the geometric representation of man, which traditionally involves five points, six when focusing on male sexuality, and seven when discussing incarnations of the Logos from certain religious cultures."
It appears to be meaningless nonsense using big words and fancy grammar to try to hide it, and I would suggest deletion.  If not, some attempt at explanation as to why this is a valid explanation and what the sentence actually means would be good.  With references please.
06:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal/citation/reference of Jungian explanation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Acrotomophilia. 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/20070223070910/http://www.fleshbot.com:80/sex/found/devotees-pretenders-and-wannabes-036808.php to http://www.fleshbot.com/sex/found/devotees-pretenders-and-wannabes-036808.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on ethics jumps right in to say how "people question whether it's ethical for people to have their own limbs amputated or to amputate their partners limbs for the sake of sexual gratification...etc", but the rest of the article doesn't say anything about this at all. Shouldn't it start by saying somewhere that this is something that people DO before it starts discussing the ethics of doing it or not? Who amputates partners limbs? How? Is that not a crime? Aren't there cases of harm or death resulting?
Idumea47b (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics section