Talk:Biastophilia

Biastophilia vs. Raptophilia

The article simply makes it impossible to tell those two terms apart. What exactly is the difference between "dependent on" and "responsive to raping a victim"? -62.219.107.171 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Could raptophilia exist?

Could raptophilia exist? It seems incredible unless it's a private phantasy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.112.113.113 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 26 November 2004

Raptophilia most certainly exists. Recently, as reported by Ananova, police in Brunssum, Holland responded to a reported kidnapping wherein a young blonde woman was kidnapped, thrown into a car, blindfolded, cuffed and raped. 22 police officers, motorcycles, cars and a helicopter were employed in tracking down the car, which was eventually uncovered about 30km away from where the kidnapping occured. When the woman was freed, she verbally assaulted the police officers, on the grounds that they had ruined a sexual fantasy she had spent months preparing.

It should be pointed out, however, that there are two distinct forms. One wherein the subject has an interest in a simulated rape, the preferred realism of which will vary from subject to subject. The other, less common variety, involves actual rape. It is important to note that a subject with the latter form of raptophilia may still respond to the rape in the usual fashion, and may incur significant trauma from the event.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.217.126.54 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 20 March 2005

But simulated rape would go under 'ravishment/rapeplay' would it not? I would also prefer if we could keep ravishment (including fantasy and roleplay) separate from biastophilia and raptophilia as to avoid confusion. Rapto- and biastophilia should, in my opinion, be used to represent being aroused by the thought, or act, of actually raping someone or being raped. With 'rape fantasy' the common reasons for arousal is dominance/submissiveness and/or lust - not the idea of being raped or raping. Mixing them all together would make it harder for us ravishment-folks to convince/explain to others that we don't actually want to be raped or rape. ---Thm 12:31, 23 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.50.229 (talk)

In all honesty, Rap/TO/philia sounds more like an attraction to dinosaurs of the more avian/chicken ancestral path, namely, well, Raptors...

-Contributor with several mental augmentations/problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.104.181.55 (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The state of this article.

This article is unreferenced, and a little unclear. Being as short as it does it doesn't answer any of the questions that automatically come to mind when being introduced to such a term. It should be sourced and possibly merged into rape, being that it may remain in stub form for a very long time. Lotusduck 19:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rapism

Rapism is a requested article, and I think it might be best handled as part of this article. If you think so (and can find an appropriate source), please add it, create the redirect, and then remove it from this list. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biastophilia. 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/20100417234616/http://www.dsm5.org:80/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=416 to http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=416

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)