Talk:Playing doctor

message: ...(and in fact I originally tagged it for speedy delete).  It doesn't in fact refer to a game in any formal sense; children play doctors and nurses, mothers and fathers, cowboys and indians, shopkeeper and customer, and who knows what else — they're all varieties of role-play, not distinct games deserving of encyclopædia articles.  I'm inclined to go for VfD on this.  Does anyone have a defence? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually 'mothers and fathers' can do (and I don't know what a Freudian would make of cowboys and indians...).  But why should sexual content make it article-worthy?  Mind you, I can see a place for an article on children's role-playing games, just not for individual articles like this one. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 13:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *If such an article existed, this could be merged there, but deleting this would just create a gap in wikipedia's coverage when there doesn't need to be one. But take it to Vfd if you'd like. Kappa 13:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it is totally unjustified to use the term "playing doctor" for a sexual activity. For the vast majority of children who "play doctor' or play "doctors and nurses" there is no sexual implication. This is like suggesting that all photographers of children are perverts (rather than just a tiny percentage). The article should be retitled, or the content entirely changed.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Royalcourtier, we've already been over this with you in the #What?!? section below. The children are not engaging in the type of sexual activity that you seem to be thinking of. Like the article states, the term refers to "children examining each other's genitals. It originates from children using the pretend roles of doctor and patient as a pretext for such an examination. However, whether or not such role-playing is involved, the phrase is used to refer to any similar examination. Playing doctor is distinguished from child-on-child sexual abuse because the latter is an overt and deliberate action directed at sexual stimulation, including orgasm, as compared to anatomical curiosity. Playing doctor is considered by most child psychologists to be a normal step in childhood development between the ages of approximately three and six years, so long as all parties are willing participants and relatively close in age. However, it can be a source of discomfort to some parents to discover their children are engaging in such an activity." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

text: I regard children examining each others genitals as sexual activity - as do the writers of the article. Don't presume that I am thinking of something else. The fact is that the article is referring to sexual activity, and states as much, but using a term for it which is at best ambiguous, and at worst quite misleading. And I stand by my belief that most children "playing doctors" are neither examining each others genitals nor doing anything remotely sexual.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you reopening this ten-year old discussion to rehash old arguments? As multiple other editors have pointed out, Wikipedia goes by sources. Many sources have been presented supporting this usage. Opinions about what is and what is not sexual activity must come from established experts. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Royalcourtier, what proof do you have that "the writers of the article" view playing doctor as a sexual activity as far as it concerns  children? I am a "writer of the article" (there's not much of an article here), and I don't view the matter the way you do. I know how you feel on this topic because you stated how you feel in the #What?!? section below; in other words, that's not me presuming something. Children examining each other's genitals because of anatomical curiosity is not what I would call true sexual activity. Is it child sexuality? Yes, but human sexuality is a broad topic, and it does not all equate to sexual perversion. Either way, like Grayfell just stated above, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find this a very peculiar article... 

message: I've alrady made Doctor (game) a redirect to a new article, Children's games (role play), and I did the same for this.  Another editor, Kappa, disagrees, and has reinstated it.  My objections to it as a separate article are:
#It's not encyclopædic
#Its content is over-generalised and lacks citations (what on earth are 'parenting professionals' anyway?)
#Nothing of worth here can't be dealt with adequately on the new page
#Aside from Kappa's addition of a link on the new article, and a number of redirects, only one article – a list of 'traditional children's games' – links here.
I'd appreciate some thoughts on this, so that consensus can be reached on keeping it or making it a redirect. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 20:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to make this a redirect

message: I'm kinda with Aranel on this one. That's what I and everyone else I knew did. Nothing risque. Just plastic first aid kits. As a matter of fact, I think only dirty twenty-somethings ever seem to be the ones that ever call this that. I think most proper parents would call this "horrid" and end up giving their kids a good whipping and confining them to quarters or something of the like for a very long time. I never knew a kid of the age group Kappa seems to envision to do this, and I have a feeling few kids think of this on their own. It's only been ten or so years since I was this age. I also think I've heard other terms for it (might be better?).
 I certainly think it's horrid to have a children's game article link to this. Please move it. Just for propriety. Thanks.
:Different strokes for different folks, I guess...though giving your kids a good whipping is completely uncalled for and useless, but whatev. —lensovet–talk – 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't think of one 

message: Just my opinion Radishes 09:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, it's fine. Though it could use an explanation as to why the game is called by this name. My condolences to those who discovered that their innocent triage center and surgery roleplay games shared a common title with this one. --tjstrf talk 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the article is fine as-is 

message: When and where did the link was there a link established between the game and sexuality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikeleefan (talk • contribs) 08:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: "Typically in such a game, children play roles of doctor and patient, using the imaginary clinical setting as a pretext to examine one another without clothes." is a huge, extremely provocative and overly generalized claim; and if a credible citation is not given, I will remove it from the article and will also remove other related material from other paragraphs. I tagged above mentioned line in October 2007. Believe me, I hate you! (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any books on childraising on hand, but plenty of them do mention this behavior under this specific name.  I know I've used the term since childhood.  I'll see if I can find a better reference later.  Franzeska (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is known in the sexual sense in Scandinavian Nordic countries too. Harjasusi (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an example. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: This entire article is based on a falsehood. "Playing doctor" is not a euphemism for "children examining each other's genitals". Some people may use the term as a euphemism for this, but that is not the meaning of the term.  "Playing doctor" means precisely what it says. This article should either be deleted or entirely re-written by someone who has neither an agenda nor sexual perversions.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, ah, yes, the sexual perversion/agenda claim again; we already covered this in the #What?!? section above. I wonder which logged-out editor you are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim 

message: It's not about a simple role-playing game -- or else there would be no need for it. We don't need an article on children pretending to be doctors and patients any more than we need an article on children pretending to be gardener and homeowner, or tree and rock. Provocative/shocking/disgusting as one might find this topic, playing doctor is a term that refers to children examining each other's genitalia out of curiosity. Whether you've heard the term before or not, it does exist, this does occur with most children, and it's even considered normal, so kindly get over your shock and disgust and remember we're not censored. I've added several references to this effect, and you can see here for more info: http://pediatrics.about.com/od/playingdoctor/Playing_Doctor.htm. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:53, 25 Dec 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Playing doctor" is not "a term that refers to children examining each other's genitalia out of curiosity". That is how you chose to use the term. I have heard the term used many times in the past, never with any perverted sexual undertones.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If what is meant is children's sexual activity, then another title should be used.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this article is about 

message: The meadow chapter in Laurie Lee's book Cider with Rosie (1959) might be worth citing/linking.  —Sladen (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Passage itself is on Page 204. —Sladen (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A work of fiction does not assist with the improvement of the article. In any case I believe that the term is not used in the book.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Cider with Rosie]]'' 

message: There should be at least a short explanation about children roleplaying without the intent to look at the other's genitals. I imagine that it is rather common for a child to agree to play without knowing the intent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's a different topic on a different subject, it's covered at role-playing#Amusement and in-depth at make believe.  —Sladen (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would add, but too much of a newbie to edit the article. 

message: "Playing doctor is distinguished from child-on-child sexual abuse because the latter is an overt and deliberate action directed at sexual stimulation, including orgasm, as compared to anatomical curiosity."  So there is either "examining each other's genitals" or "rape", no middle ground?  I beg to differ.  "Playing doctor" is also used as a game in order to engage in sex of any sort.  "Examination" is when they haven't learned about sex and genitals yet, sure, but after that, "playing doctor" would be used to simply mean "sex" or "sexual play" of any nature. Swiftpaw (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Swiftpaw, as noted in the #What?!? section above, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. As for your assertion that "'playing doctor' would be used to simply mean 'sex' or 'sexual play' of any nature," the article used to include the following line: "Adults also use the phrase 'playing doctor' facetiously in similar reference, to refer to adult sexual activity." But it was recently removed (followup note here). Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Flyer22, me and my cousins and friends did all that when we were young, so we disagree with the assertion that "playing doctor" means either genital examination, or rape.  It's an excuse to lead into sexual playing of all different sorts, and doesn't just stop at "genital examination".  The "examination" is simply foreplay.  Just stating facts, but I hear you about needing a source.  Perhaps I should write an article about my own experiences and source that?  Thanks for the comments.  Swiftpaw (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Swiftpaw, you mean write a Wikipedia article? That wouldn't pass the WP:Notability standard because of the sourcing issue. But if you mean a personal blog, okay. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This sentence makes no sense... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Playing doctor. 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/20090116190323/http://www.canadianparents.com/article/i-caught-them-playing-doctor to http://www.canadianparents.com/article/i-caught-them-playing-doctor
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) 03:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified