Talk:Voyeurism

message: I saw a documentary on some sex enthusiasts organization where you could go as a viewable person, typically having sex at room with windows or as a watcher, with the mild encourgagement to participate.  Im thinking about becoming a consensual voyeur, yet as I casually describe these possible activities, at say job onterviews, id like to get the phrasing right.  that way if I say, "well outside of work I enjoy voyeurism" might bring up questions of consensuality at a job interview whereas if I said I was an observational swinger perhaps the interviewer would say "my how pleasant You know theres a secular tantric yoga park near us"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.34 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is consensual voyeurism called 

message: The Wikimedia Mercury and Herse image doesn't have any explanation as to why it is there (a synopsis of the myth).  Links leading to the Mercury and Herse articles don't explain the image either.  For being as overt as that image is, and since the story of Mercury and Herse are not as widely known, I think it would be helpful to see a small explanation on why that is included. Jeni Mc 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know how to fit it into the article, but there is some discussion of Caraglio further fictionalizing the Mercury-Aglauros-Herse myth in his engraving, in Bette Talvacchia's book Taking positions: on the erotic in Renaissance culture, , where she says "The subject of illicit viewing is expanded ... to include the interruption of one voyeur caught in the act."  --CliffC (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars

message: Are most voyeurs teenaged boys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasting (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 October 2001 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Twas merely an example of a voyeuristic practice which may not be treated as deviant sexuality. <I>-REF</I> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latexture (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 October 2001 (UTC)
thread_title: Teenagers

message: #Is voyeurism more common in sexually repressed cultures?
#Is rape more common in sexually repressed cultures?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasting (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 October 2001 (UTC)
replies: text: These two questions seem linked in the way they were posed, but I don't believe they're applicable here.  The question of whether or not a culture is "sexually repressed" is a relativist question at best.  Furthermore, it is dangerous to ascribe yes/no answers to these questions because you are then in danger of implicating whole cultures of a proclivity toward deviant sexual practices. <I>-REF</I> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latexture (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 October 2001 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexually repressed cultures

message: Are nudists/naturists voyeurs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasting (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 October 2001 (UTC)
replies: text: While some may be, I would put this answer at no.  A nudist/naturist does not (necessarily) derive sexual pleasure from looking/watching others.  In fact, nudism/naturism is not considered a sexual deviancy because it is not linked to or a replacement for the sexual act . . . instead it is merely a preference for the naked state over the clothed one. <I>-REF</I> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latexture (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 October 2001 (UTC)
thread_title: Nudists

message: Although the term voyeurism is most commonly used in the context of watching people have sex or otherwise being unclothed, this isn't its only use, either in normal speech or popular culture.  In general, it can refer to liking to watch people in any normally private setting, which can be a sexual sort of voyeurism, but can also be something akin to living vicariously by watching someone else's life.  (A few films, such as Monsieur Hire, have portrayed this latter sort of voyeurism.) --Delirium 06:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
:Expanded and explained the hidden and "dangerous" nature of voyeurism. Mixoscopia (or scoptolagnia) is the act of viewing sexual intercourse (in person). Mixophilia (or scoptophilia) is the actual love or obsession with viewing the act. --hypercritic 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a greater distinction between mixophilia and voyeurism, and an analysis of the "danger" factor involved, please see: Voyeurism and Scoptophilia: Would You Look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypercritic (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More general defition

message: Is the reference to "making love" in a caption a euphemism? If so, should it be removed?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.--SpaceGirl09 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euphemism? 

message: If what we write/illustrate is to be taken seriously, we should treat it seriously.  I'm pretty certain that there must a better illustration for this subject other than a pornographic crotch shot.
bpage (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the illustration appropriate for older children/teens 

message: I've found some of the legal examples slightly confusing, as they don't seem to make clear whether or not the voyeurism was consensual; I am assuming in most cases it was not, but I think this should be made clearer and obviously I can't update it on an assumption. For example:
*Another English case in 2009, "R v Wilkins" [8][9], resulted in a man who filmed his intercourse with five of his lovers for his own private viewing, being sentenced to imprisonment for eight months and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register for ten years.
I'm from England, and as far as I'm aware, filming intercourse with sexual partners for one's own private viewing is not illegal with consent, but without consent is another matter.
I hope someone can clear this up a bit. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Clarification

message: The sources cited for the claim that these lenses are able to capture images of a person's body through clothing do not confirm the claim.  Instead, they deny it entirely:
"The camera can then image metallic and non-metallic objects hidden under clothing on still or moving subjects without revealing any body detail, according to its British manufacturer, ThruVision Limited." (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/16/camera.england/index.html
The video of the camera in action does not work.  But on the Thruvision web site, you can view a video of the equipment in action:
http://www.thruvision.com/Our_Products/TS4_Sub_Pages/TS4_Video/TS4Vid.html
Does somebody believe that this kind of obscure mushy image is worth including as 'voyeurism'? It seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.  I think the section should be removed, or radically rewritten.  ParWoet (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialized camera lenses see through clothing? 

message: I've twice in the past 24 hours reverted changes to this article which changed some (not all) of the US English spellings to British English ones.  Please see WP:ENGVAR - Wikipedia accepts both variants equally, but unnecessary changing back and forth is unhelpful and against policy.  If an article is written consistently in one variant, as this one is, there is no need to change bits of it to another variant.  As the notice at the top of this page clearly says, such changes should not be made to this article without consensus.  Karenjc 14:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing US English to British English spellings

message: The article features an image of the painting Mercury and Herse, a scene from The Loves of the Gods series by Gian Giacomo Caraglio. However, that particular painting is not at all relevant to the subject of the article, i.e. "voyeurism, since it does not depict a voyeuristic situation. The legend of ancient Greek god Mercury and the sisters Herse and Aglaulos is not about voyeurism, either. The image needs to be removed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate image

message: I think that a time frame for how long the symptoms should last in order to be diagnosed with Voyeurism should be added. I think this would be a helpful piece of information, any thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennaswanson19 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Frame for Diagnosis? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Voyeurism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150811162533/http://www.fbi.gov/library/leb/leb.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/library/leb/leb.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One of the worst articles I've read on international Wikipedia. It ain't answering a single thing one may be looking to find.
Insead, it's saying: one research claims this... but on the other hand, another research claims that...
Unlike at most articles, I ain't got educated at all...
For instance - the main thing - is there mentioned the reason WHY someone may become voyeur?
In the whole article I haven't found infrormation whether one's lack of sexuacl experience may influence tends to voyeurism. For instance, if I'm unable to find a sexual partner, may I become voyeur? What's the ratio between having sex (possibility) vs. being a voyeur (unability)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.97.7 (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article says nothing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Voyeurism. 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/20130417194151/http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/TheCrimnalLaw030413.pdf to http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/TheCrimnalLaw030413.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified