Talk:Exhibitionism

message: WHY DOES THIS PAGE NOT HAVE AN IMAGE? IT SURELY NEEDS ONE!
:Oh My Ghot! But such photos?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.137.194 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I miss any mentioning of the difference in attitude to male and female exhibitionism. Men are very likely to be prosecuted even when no aggression or harassment is involved. Some men are even subjected to some cruel form of "treatment" which is designed to reduce their libido! I am not an expert on this matter, but can someone with more information add this to the article? Hummel 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be some discussion the differing attitudes with regards to male and female exhibitionism, especially with regard to how they are often treated differently under the law. Also the article should differentiate between the traditional male flasher in a trench coat who's mainly looking to shock or scare woman for his sexual pleasure vs.  the exhibitionist woman who gets off on the positive reaction of men she flashes. --Cab88 09:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male Exhibitionism 

message: wtf is up with the picture of the erect penis?  I don't think that belongs in this article.
:lol, well it certainly would be an example of exhibitionism if somebody put their erect penis here! Mathmo 06:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't think sexism nor heterocentrism belong in this article either. I don't think the last picture was accurate because it stated that the male was flashing, but all he was doing was lifting his shirt a little. That is not exhibitionism (just read the article, it says so). Therefore I replaced it with a guy in the act of truly flashing (exhibitionism). HotDog 04:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erect penis? 

message: I have merged the content, "Martymachlia is the paraphilia involving sexual attraction to having others watch during a sexual act", into this article, and made Martymachlia a redirect to this article.  Feel free to rewrite this or do whatever else necessary with it.  --Xyzzyplugh 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Martymachlia

message: Don't you think the Soccerflasher.jpg picture needs censor (or maybe remove)?
I don't think that everybody, who opens the Exhibitionism page, have to see a nude man (and it shouldn't be forgotten that yjere is not an adult content protection in Wikipedia for the kids). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahmet Keles (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Wikipedia policy to not censor images or other content.  That policy can be found here.  That particular image realistically depicts the article's subject, and is what one would expect to see in an encyclopedia article about a "psychological need and pattern of behavior to exhibit naked parts of the body to other people".  The current consensus among editors of this page seems to be to keep the image as it is in the article. Robotman1974 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but really though, its hard to browse wikipedia when everyone thinks your looking at porn. 66.169.197.170 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  I doubt any professional encyclopedia would actually show such nudity for a non-anatomical article. It seems gratuitous and I cannot share the link to this page (and its clinical definitions it contains) for reasons of these images. BrotherSulayman (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures illustrate what the article is about, no more and no less. It is extremely important not to censor pictures. You take offense because they show people showing their naked bodies, other people take offense for other illustrations for other reasons. So, if you know that you don't like the pictures, just use another source of information if you want to know more about exhibitionism. Lova Falk talk 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncensored Image? 

message: I believe that around the 10th century, when Christianity was expanding it's boundaries and building mew churches it used a valuable tool of carving "exhibitionists" on the outside walls of it's churches. These were sex scenes of all natures which helped to pull in the crowds and get poeple to convert to christianity. I am not an historian, but saw this on a BBC documentary many years ago.
The Oxford English Dictionary refers to exhibitionism as being "any behaviour that is intended to attract attention to oneself," without any mention of nudity. Whereas a common form of exhibitionism does involve nudity, I do feel there ought to be at least some kind of acknowledgement of the fact that it need not involve nakedness.
: Interesting point about 10th century use, but Oxford having no mention of nudity, that is not so. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (online) clearly shows exhibitionism with two definitions: 1) seeking attention 2) exposing genitals
1 extravagant behaviour that is intended to attract attention to oneself.
2 (Psychiatry) a mental condition characterized by the compulsion to display one’s genitals in public.
: Of note is that being an exhibitionist for a day or week is does not classify a person as having the mental condition of "exhibitionism" as defined by the [WHO] ICD-10 Version 2007. ICD-10
A recurrent or persistent tendency to expose the genitalia to strangers (usually of the opposite sex) or to people in public places, without inviting or intending closer contact. There is usually, but not invariably, sexual excitement at the time of the exposure and the act is commonly followed by masturbation.
:Specifically the 2000 American Psychiatric Association link requires both of these criteria for a clinical diagnosis of 302.4 Exhibitionism:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the exposure of one's genitals to an unsuspecting stranger. 
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
: I see that some work is needed to bring this article up to the same level as Voyeurism and I'll take a gander at that task. Peace. BodyPride (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other meaning for the word "Exhibitionist" 

message: The flashing definition as given on this page doesn't agree with what I'm used to. Perhaps it's a North American/Commonwealth thing but from my experience flashing and flasher is far more commonly used to refer to males who go around exposing their genitalia then females exposing their breasts. While this is perhaps not exhibitionism but simply indecent exposure, if we're going to give a definition of flashing here it's important we get it right. Try doing a search for flashing male on Google to confirm this usage is common Nil Einne 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious - flashing definition 

message: A google search for "flashing" brings up roofing, and of course "male flasher" would bring up what you suggest, but we're not talking about indecent exposure here, which is what "male flasher" implies anyway. When I did a google search on "flasher", this is what came up: http://www.beatlespennylane.com/Penny_Lane_Live/Flasher.jpg.
Looks to me like a girlie with a bare boob. Am I wrong? 68.173.16.81 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  flasher 

message: Although when I search for scholarly studies on it -my search gets bogged down with internet porn ads -There is a new breed of exhibitionist who will expose herself (I believe that men do this too) -through a webcam to a public internet chatroom. I have personally met women who do this and seem perfectly normal in every other way. It seems that the internet has provided a "safe" outlet for this behavior. Unfortunately I am not finding anything that really mentions the internet. Astrocloud 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Technology 

message: This sentence strikes me as somewhat odd:
"Night clubs and goth bars encourage mild exhibitionism to enhance the venue's atmosphere."
I would like to have a reliable source to the alleged fact that "goth bars encourage exhibitionism". I suspect this is a false assumption by the editor (violating WP:NOR) based on the belief that Goth subculture is highly eroticized - which is true for some aspects. However, I have never heard of the active encouragement of exhibitionism in goth bars and have never made that experience myself (being a "metalhead", I have had numerous contacts with active Goths and have frequented quite a number of venues catering to Goth subculture). That is a rather gross extrapolation. Vargher (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exhibitionism and Goth subculture

message: While responding to a request at WP:MCQ#Exhibitionism to allow the use of the image :Image:Jello biafra mooning.jpg in this article, I took a look at the other images currently used in this article, and I have to say I find the relevance of some of them, not to mention the captions applied to them, questionable to say the least.  For example, this image at the top of the article, apparently depicting female UVM students attending a public "nude bike ride" event, was captioned simply "Exhibitionists"!
Right, time for a reality check here.  We have an image depicting three recognizable persons in varying states of undress, apparently taken with the subjects' consent but with no indication that the subjects were asked to sign model releases or even informed of the intent to publish the image on Wikipedia.  While the photographer at least argues that, by attending a public event and posing for the photograph, the subjects gave implicit permission to have their photos taken and published, attaching the label "exhibitionist" to the photo is a classic example of a use that could get one sued even if the subject had signed a standard model release.  The same goes for the other photos.  Presumably Jello Biafra knew what he was getting into when he mooned a hacker convention, but even he would have every right to be pissed off if we labeled him an exhibitionist without permission or any evidence of the factuality of the claims.
I've edited the image captions to make them more neutral, but I'm not sure that's enough.  In fact, I'm rather surprised at how weakly related to the subject any of these images are.  Since the article is about exhibitionism, one would naïvely expect to find at least one picture actually showing clearly exhibitionist behavior.  At the moment, what we have instead is a bunch of photos depicting people flashing or nude in public, with little or no concrete evidence of sexual motivation, plus one illustration from Marquis de Sade showing various sexual acts but, at least without additional context, no indication of these being carried out in public.  That's pretty weak.  Surely, by the very nature of the thing, there shouldn't be any difficulty in finding pictures of exhibitionists, should there?  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The captions seem improved, and I have to agree that the illustration from DeSade looks out of place, but the the image of the 3 women flashing certainly has erotic overtones and therefore seems appropriate. The image of the couple flashing seems only to indicate a lack of inhibitions, not actual exhibitionism, so it's inclusion is rather weak. In short, only the most "provocative" of the 3 seems to be right for this article. Since it is only very mildly provocative it doesn't even seem to justify the use of a linkimage. And as for concerns raised by Shlomit Lir, please review wikipedia is not censored censored. The standard we apply would be regarding the images' utility to the article, not their potential to offend individual editors or readers. Doc  Tropics 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and captions 

message: I don't think it's correct to define exhibitionism using the term apodysophilia as that wiki page redirects right back here: cyclic. Since apodysophilia is considered a "rarely used term" why in the world use it here. I'm not sure of what correction is due, but wanted to point it out to more savvy wiki folks. Thinking further, an old version of the apodysophilia wiki page seems better, and then change that page's link from nudism to exhibitionism. Thoughts? BodyPride (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: cyclic definition

message: I deleted the Celebrity Exhibitionsm section as it was unreferenced, and as such is a violation of WP:BLP.  For example, Lindsay Lohan was listed there, and I am pretty sure that she has stated in the past that she won't be doing any nude scenes.  As for the others, well, it does come under the realm of WP:OR as without reliable sources that state that they are exhibitionists, it is original research.  Although I will admit that it would probably be quite easy to find a source that states that Pamela Anderson is an exhibitionist...
In any case, I feel it is best to remove that section in its entirety and only put it back in when there are references to back up the section. Stephen! Coming... 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Celebrity section 

message: The definition is wrong, as are the illustrations. As clear from any dictionary (Merriam-Webster, OED, American Heritage), exhibitionism only refers to the sexual practice of displaying one's private parts for the purpose of self-arousal of the individual performing it, in front of involuntary observers. Not to public nudity in general. Use of the word for other types of situations is metaphorical and derogative. It's absurd to regard every woman in history that reportedly appeared nude publicly for one purpose or another as an exhibitionist. The images are also irrelevant, because they clearly show erotic "flashing" by professional models in porn context, intended not to stimulate the flasher but the public. A man with a long coat in the woods would be a more appropriate illustration. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP editor is correct.— James Cantor (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionary definitions are not controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-written the lede, removed the pics, and deleted text which was not really about exhibitionism.  Page still needs work, though.— James Cantor (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your edits, as they removed a great deal of material which has been in the article for a quite a long time, and you cited no sourcs to support your removals, except your on say-so, i.e. "This is not exhibitionism."  Perhaps some of your changes are appropriate, perhaps not, but I have Reverted your Bold edit, and the next step (per WP:BRD) is Discussion.  Please make your case for those changes here, being specific about why you believe they do not belong in the article (and a dictionary definition is not sufficient grounds) and citing sources to support your contention.  If you get a consensus of editors here who agree with you, then fine, the edits can be restored, but please do not restore your deletions without a consensus to do so. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, in case you're interested, your user page clain to be a psychologist and sex researcher does not give you any special privileges in terms of shaping this article -- you still must cite sources and get a consensus when yoour edits are disputed.  What your expertise gives you, of course, is knowledge about what sources to cite in support of your contentions. You cannot, however, own the article and re-configure it the way you want to simply on the basis of your supposed qualifications -- as they say, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog, and we have no way of knowing that you are who you say you are.  That's why we require that information be supported by citations from reiable sources, especially when disputed or controversial.  Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The definition and illustrations are wrong. 

message: I don't want this page turning into some kind of porn site, but filling the content with two large pics of woman with similar anatomy isn't exactly showing extensive coverage of the subject (or rather uncoverage, if you know what I mean...), so how about just showing one picture of each and just leaving it at that? Robo37 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the pics only focusing on woman? 

message: When I think of exhibitionism the image conjured, at least in my mind, is the stereotypical guy in a trenchcoat. But, of course, Wikipedia instead shows a young girl flashing at Mardi Gras. —Wiki Wikardo 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  As you can see from the discussions above, however, there are editors who feel strongly that the page should be about the colloquial use of the term instead of how it is used in behavioural science.  (PS- I love your wiki name.)— James Cantor (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  14:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systemic bias? 

message: Class IV: Exclusive Exhibitionists- "Such exhibitionists do not seem to have been reported in literature so far, but based on the theory of paraphilic equivalence, it can be predicted that these exhibitionists do exist in society and they will be reported sometime in the future."
Is Wikipedia making this prediction or is Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices making this prediction? Should it even be included?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crystal Ball? 

message: I see two pieces of information on this page and I can't get them to jibe in my head; they seem to contradict each other. First, "Only very few exhibitionists chose "Anger and disgust" (3.8%) or "Fear" (0.5%) [as a most desired response in their targets]." Second, "For the person performing the act, the point of such indecent exposure and similar indecent exposure is that[...]the shock and repulsion actually increases the flasher's sexual excitement."
Given that Freund, Watson and Rienzo cited in the first instance was specifically about sex offenders who were exhibitionists, this seems like a contradiction to me. Do indecent exposers want to shock and frighten their targets, or don't they? Is there something I'm missing here? 99.224.255.235 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the content in the Classification section is unsourced and probably wrong. I've never heard of any distinction between "flashing" and "indecent exposure", except that one term is colloquial and the other legal. I'll cull it. KateWishing (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  A contradiction? 

message: Hello everyone! I was just reading through this page and more specially through this particular section and I realized that the statistics for those who actually participate in these actions was not very defined. I was looking to make the statistics more clearly defined in both male and females sexes. Just so people have more to go on. Something more concrete, because when you put numbers or statistics to things, such as papers or documents more people are drawn to them. I wanted people know more than just the fact that males have, typically more exhibitionist behaviors than women do. This are my purposed changes:  (Yazzz1993 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified your comment above to make it easier to see your changes. Please add the page number for the Nolen-Hoeksema reference. Also, per MOS:HEAD, the section heading should be capitalized as "Psychological aspects," not "Psychological Aspects". KateWishing (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for modifying my comment! The page number for the Nolen-Hoeksema reference is pg.384. (Yazzz1993 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing Update On Psychological aspects

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Exhibitionism. 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/20121120094326/http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Blackledge/excerpt.html to http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Blackledge/excerpt.html
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) 05:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:Beyond My Ken, you have been told multiple times (at least , )  that images belong in the section that refers to them (MOS:IM), not above it; and that reverting for "status quo" or "no consensus" is ownership behavior, meaning it is a bad revert reason. The "status quo" existed before you put the image in the wrong place, so picking and choosing the "status quo" as your edit (and not the edit prior to yours) is not a valid revert reason. Status quo doesn't matter, consensus matters. The consensus is MOS:IM. If you dispute the consensus the onus to reach a new consensus is on you. , it's time to let go of the stick. Bright☀ 07:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS:IM 

message: I propose to merge streaking into exhibitionism. Streaking is a subset of exhibitionism., Both articles are of a reasonable size, so the proposed merger will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. SunCrow (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no objection, I have completed the merge. SunCrow (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: SunCrow, I just saw this merge. Obscene phone call doesn't belong here; it is not the same topic. You should revert the merge. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert merge of [[Obscene phone call]] to here 

message: The article does not mention the diagnostic and therapeutic approach as a mental disease (Reference: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/conditions/exhibitionism ) It is also strongly related to psychiatric comorbidity (Refernece: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16420072/ ) 84.205.241.2 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This behavior is sometimes a symptom of a mental disorder, but quite often is engaged in by those with no diagnosed disorder. Examples of this mentally healthy behavior can be seen on the page, in 5 of the 6 images and in the only video. Also, the page does, in fact, cover this; see §Psychological aspects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not mention that it is a mental disorder and its relation to psychiatric problems

message: The photo of the man streaking at the 2006 Harvard-Yale football game has an incorrect caption. Harvard Stadium is not located in Cambridge, it is located in the Allston neighborhood of Boston. I would fix this, but I'm not sure if I should change Cambridge to Allston or to Boston. Bunkyray5 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect caption 

message: The two sources cited mention nothing about any such news report, but do mention that the University of Maryland's attempted record happened in 1974, not 1973. The word "streaking" was already being used by Time, Newsweek, and others before the Maryland attempt, making this origin story clearly apocryphal. I propose removing the entire paragraph. Xscapist (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streaking etymology - Maryland story is provably false 

message: I'm not sure why "streaking" was singled out for merging and not any other pages listed under "Types of Exhibitionism" that have much shorter pages, if just for consistency sake. However, since merging additional pages would take more work than unmerging the one, I propose undoing the merge of "streaking." Xscapist (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unmerge "Streaking" from "Exhibitionism"? 

message: The redirect Lady Godiva syndrome has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 04:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Lady Godiva syndrome]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Roshutsu has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 01:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Roshutsu]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Sexy flash has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 04:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Sexy flash]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]