Talk:Urolagnia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Urolagnia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remove some of the people from the list

Urolagnia, as part of sex, is supposed to be a consensual, enjoyable thing. Even in the case of someone like Troughman, everyone taking part is happy to be there. This is not the case in the case of Albert Fish, who was a depraved murderer and ch1ld r8p15t, or Ian Watkins, another ch1ld r8pist. Including those two is like including some notorious r8p1st in an article on the Kama Sutra. In the cases of Fish and Watkins, only one person was enjoying the urination, the others were victims.

It really changes the tone of this article into something horrible. It starts off fairly reasonable, pseudo-clinical even (not a bad thing). But then comes the list... Do we even need a list? Why does it matter, how is it educational to the public, to know which people like which kind of sex? It seems irrelevant in an article that describes urolagnia, the thing itself.

I'd prefer to get rid of the list altogether, but can we at least get the horrifying prolific ch1ld-r8p1sts off the list? You don't normally include p*********s in an article about sex. What they do isn't sex, it's violence and abuse.

Pardon my silly miss-spellings, one of Wikipedia's many faulty bots decided this comment was "unconstructive" so I'm trying to work around it. Sorry.

84.70.172.53 (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section is factual and relevant to the topic, so I don't see why it should be removed. Censoring/removing specific items just because they're more offensive than the others doesn't seem appropriate either. Frogging101 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@84.70.172.53 Your bias is censoring Wikipedia. We all have our own opinions and preferences, but Wikipedia isn't the place to remove hard facts, however inconvenient to our agenda they may be. Using this logic, a Stalinist Marxist-Leninist could have the Holodomor removed from an article on Stalin, or an Austrian Economist could get the article on Pinochet heavily redacted and sanitized. Is that what we want? Jamutaq (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a golden shower?

???? 213.219.122.16 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. Urine is golden in color. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SummerTimeSosa (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical and Health Aspects

I've just reverted the addition of a new 'Medical and Health Aspects' section, as I'm concerned that it doesn't comply with the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) guidelines - we have to be particularly careful with sourcing for medically-related content, and I'd advise anyone not familiar with the Wikipedia policy and/or relevant medical sources to seek advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine before adding such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Remove Legal and Ethical Considerations

It seems like the R. Kelly lawsuit is only tangentially related to urolagnia, and could fit neatly into the notable cases. The section doesn't even say anything substantial about the legal and ethical considerations of urolagnia; it has such complex ideas as "don't involve non-consenting parties in sexual paraphilia" (isn't paraphilia sexual by definition?) which you could throw into any fetish-related article. Even the linked source doesn't really say anything about urolagnia, other than mentioning the video of Kelly peeing on a girl. Nythdom (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]