Talk:Urolagnia/Archive 2

Links

1. Hepatitis C and Watersports (urine)
2. Watersports for HIV+ people
3. Watersports FAQ — Info and safety tips.
4. Urolagnia Sexual Disorders
5. Article about Watersports
6. Information about Pussing
7. Resources On Golden Showers

None of the above links really meet the external link guidelines WP:EL, do they? If consensus proves me wrong, then return those that do.

Maybe explain why you don't feel they meet them. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For starters we have Links to Avoid #13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject"

• • Hepatitis C and Watersports (urine)
  • Watersports for HIV+ people

These two links are about watersports AND ____, while the article is simply about Watersports. They are also clearly in violation "Important points to remember #5" - "avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website"

Then take a look at the rest of the links under the lens of Links to Avoid #11 "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority" It is completely unclear who is responsible for any of the websites and so we cannot know if the author(s) are 'recognized authorities' or if these sites are purely original research.

So, how do any of the above links qualify to be included as external link? 207.69.139.144 (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

FIrst of all, thanks for taking hte time to respond. I know the policies of which you speak, and I though it might be nice to have them iterated here, not only for posterity but for easy reference.

The following links are okay, and I will note why:

Sources 1,2 and 4 are reliable citations, as they are informed responses to inquiries by professionals in the field. Would they be better off being incorporated into the article? Undoubtedly. Until then, they seem notable, reliable and verifiable. Your argument that they are not about urolagnia only is incorrect. They directly discuss urolagnia. That they also discuss peripherally related material (Hep-C and HIV, both fluid-transmittable diseases) is not a reason for disqualification. As well, your impression that they violate multiple linkings, I tend to agree. You should instead incorporate the links as citations for the article, not simply delete them. Feel free to do that.

Source #3 seems to be fine, as do #5 and #6. They are informative links that go beyond the content of the article. As noted before, you should feel free to incorporate the information in those articles as citations for additional text.

Source #7 is totally inappropriate. It is a pay for porn site,and has no business here; Wikipedia is not for sale.

Hope that clarifies matters somewhat. i will remove #7 immediately. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You can claim they meet WP:EL, and I will not argue any more, but Sites 3, 5 and 6 are in NO WAY qualified as reliable sources and should any one attempt to use them as such, they will be immediately removed. 4.158.231.107 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As you have been informed of disageement with that assessment, it should not be reverted until we get some input from a third party. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Third party input: This comes across as only being the latest iteration of a long-running war to get a link to pussing.org into Wikipedia. Link was properly removed. arimareiji (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Health considerations

The "Health considerations" section is absolutely relevant to the practice of urolagnia. Much of the information is not sourced, but it could be sourced very easily. I would appreciate it if the IP user who removed this information would explain their rationale rather than reverting. Whatever404 (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No its not - and besides being off topic, it is completely unsourced. Do not return until you have a reliable source, per WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.32 (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It was in the text, you removed it, and your edit was reverted. In contentious subject matter, a higher standard for the weight of a challenge becomes necessary. As per WP:BRD, it is you who needs to defend its removal, and find a consensus for it. Otherwise, the edit should stay in. Use the discussion page; it helps. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually removed this because it was copied, verbatim, from Urophagia. Whatever404 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it your position that the two are mutually exclusive? I am sure that some folk derive sexual pleasure from the drinking of urine. More pointedly, if it was in another article, it suggests that the material has already been subjected to editorial scrutiny. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it does not make sense to have a block of several paragraphs of nearly identical material in two separate places. If someone wants to learn about the general aspects of urophagia (which apply regardless of whether the context is sexual), they can go to the general Urophagia article. They can come here to learn about the activity as performed in a sexual context. Whatever404 (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

New Version of this article is not as good or informative as the previous one, aprox. 6 Months ago. Too bad we won't get that back. (Non Registered Comment)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.14.230.65 (talk • contribs)

I would say it has been over a year since it was more informative. There was a section of notable urolagniacs and alleged urolagniacs as well as listing of depictions in popular art. A year or so prior to that after announcing what I was going to do and what the main source would be in the talk section and receiving no objections I started those sections. I did most of the additions but others contributed. There seemed to be no objections for 8 months or so but all of sudden there were. After much back and forth (See Archive 1) I withdrew from editing and told the editors ok you don't like my way of thinking about what the article should be I'll get out of your way. I thought at the time it would be the best despite my intent I had become to close to the article the other editors might have access to better material or be better researchers. With one exception (Greek Origin of the word Urolagnia) I have stayed away. The article at the time did need improvement but now all the article is a glorified dictionary entry. (FHU) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.236.87 (talk) 23:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture

this picture is disgusting. I believe it is not helpful 192.114.175.2 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. However, it is encyclopedic in nature, and free content. Without sounding too simplistic, you did type in the word Urolagnia into your wiki browser, didn't you? Were you somehow expecting pictures of teddy bears? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, one could have arrived at this article using the random article feature. --Hydraton31 (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, that sort of intolerance is fairly short-sighted and narrow-minded for an encyclopedia contributor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The black and white oldstyle pic appear to be "elegant", treating on the subject. Should be maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloishochwald (talk • contribs) 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Proof/evidence/reference to confirmation that Adolf Hitler practiced this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.179.244 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As there isn't, and this is just someone - pardon the pun - taking the piss out of Hitler, I've removed it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the man isn't ejaculating.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the picture as I felt that it was unneccesary, and could lead toward a negative view of this page. It was also quite disgusting, and I feel that most people would understand what this is without the illustration. 24.141.132.222 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is not censored. If you are disgusted by the image, well I am sorry, but that is not a reason to remove an image that is directly related to the article. 71.55.134.108 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

while I agree, this is Wikipedia and such imagery should be expected, I do think Wikipedia should not display the images of contraversal nature unless the user clicks a "display image" button. This could be done perhaps with DHTML or JAVA or something fairly easy. It is quite odd that I would make this suggestion being how I am extremely opposed to censorship of any kind on the internet or elsewhere, but this would not be censorship exactly as it would give a choice to see it or not. Anyways, on a more humorous note: Is this where they got the idea for water boarding?DiscoElf (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone in favour of requesting semi-protection?

I'll put this up on RFPP if so. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:50 18 August, 2009 (UTC)

Ricy Martin

There is definitely something wrong with this sentence. Ricky Martin - Singer. Has been told that he likes "to give the golden shower, and have done it before".

I wonder who told him that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.174.26 (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed pornographic photo and explicit artwork. Pornography is unencyclopedic.

Wikipedia is just not the place for such photography. Unencyclopedic.

108.7.5.124 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't "controversial" in a way that implies legitimate discussion of a subject in an encyclopedic manner. It is just a needless appendage to what should be a dry academic description. The more "shocking" a subject is, the more we need to be as dry and boring as possible to maintain a professional encyclopedic feel. Posting appendages like this suggests a non-neutral POV of the poster. It also suggests that Wikipedia is here to be controversial. It is WP policy to NOT be controversial, but to be dry and, well, encyclopedic.

User:Arcayne at one point said "you did type in the word Urolagnia into your wiki browser, didn't you? Were you somehow expecting pictures of teddy bears?" This is tantamount to saying "If you are innocent, then you have nothing to hide, right?" Kind of a fascist perspective eh? I came here because I didn't know what it was and I followed a link. Anyway, that kind of thinking is not an argument for inclusion. Indeed, it (and the other pro arguments) strongly suggest a greater interest in promoting a non-neutral "shock" POV, than in crafting a straightforward, dry, neutral, academic work that Wikipedia strives to be.

108.7.5.124 (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

MOREOVER,

I've looked a little more into it. That file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Urolagnia_male_self-piss.jpg) is an "Own Work". It seems that some guy who normally likes to jerk off on a webcam was looking for a way to give his exhibitionism the appearance of legitimacy. NONSENSE! The paintings, maybe okay, but this guy just wants to jerk off for us! How screwed up is that?!

This is not what Wikipedia is about!!!

Keep this file deleted from the article. When I figure out how to remove it completely I will do that.

108.7.5.124 (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Before you try and get it deleted from Commons, know that it won't be, as it is within commons' scope - in that it has legitimate educational use, is not needlessly obscene (pissing on yourself is legal, doing it to someone else is obscene legally) and is of fairly good quality. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey. No big deal there. I not really talking about legal definitions of obscenity, just about being encyclopedic and what is best for the article. Please don't call what I did "vandalism". I serious here. Please allow more discussion before instant revert of all the edits I made, some maybe (it is collaborative after all), but not all. Okay, I can take back some my express of disgust I made in the "MOREOVER" section, but I am serious about the POV question and the need to walk a narrower (drier, boring, academic) line on such troublesome topics. That way, there can be less need for blocking, etc. And, it will be a better article (by published WP standards)!  :-)

I'm happy to discuss further, but I gotta head out the door. (Be back in a few days)  :-)

Yours, 108.7.5.124 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, why those various bits should be in. The bit about full bladder - that's just reasonable. Yes it could probably do with a citation but it's hardly a problem to include it. Now, the images. The old picture I really don't care about, but it seems a fairly reasonable old depiction of the fetish. Now, that old bit is the problem - it's old, it's grey, it's an illustration. The photo is in colour, is not particularly sexually explicit, and your issue is that it's own work? Really? That is your problem with it? Commons hosts photos people take which can have educational use - this one does and is in fact our only photo of the fetish. Would you rather someone else took it? You are not assuming good faith by stating that the uploader did it simply to get people to see his cock. Maybe he took this photo specifically for educational use - we don't know. You say this is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about education, and informing people. Often with pictures to back up the text since, as the saying goes, a picture tells a thousand words. To me it doesn't make sense that a page about a topic which is about urinating on people does not now contain an image of urination.

Now, let's be more general. You go to an encyclopaedia page on a topic, expect images of that topic. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and we have a disclaimer to tell people that they may find some things offensive. We leave the censoring to the user - they can use content filtering software, or they can just choose not to visit pages about things they find offensive. That's not fascist, that's reasonable. We can't censor ourselves because one group say so, because everyone finds something offensive - some people find sex offensive, others depictions of Muhammed, others find buttons offensive. Should we not show pictures of buttons to avoid offending them? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand the part about WP:NOTCENSORED. I am only concerned about its applicability and enhancement to the article. I give up on all other arguments I've made, you win on those. I only care at this point on the photo. If we can remove that, I will be happy.

The WP:NOTCENSORED policy says:

...or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view)...will also be removed. ...However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

I agree, that is good policy. I want to focus on the photo's appropriateness for inclusion. That is, the photo and the "pissing" caption detract from a neutral POV because they are salacious when salaciousness is not necessary to communicate effectively and encyclopedically. The salaciousness suggests instead a desire for editors to be, well, salacious, which is not neutral.

Okay, I really gotta go now. Make your changes, leaving the photo out and the quality will be better. Please. It will meet WP standards better too. Thanks. Buh bye.

108.7.5.124 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The caption said urinating (since been added and removed again), which is as clinical as you can be here I think. Now, leaving the photo out will make the article better? I disagree. What makes Wikipedia better is having relevant illustrations of something, and like it or not, a few old drawings doesn't really cut it. OK, so is it relevant? Clearly, it's a photo of someone in a state of moderate arousal urinating on themselves. I can understand why people have felt the need to remove actual photos of sexual acts on Wikipedia generally and replace them with illustrations, but there those illustrations are recent, in colour, and clearly show the act in question. The ones we have here now do not. As for salacioisness... yeah, it's a bit risqué, but I think it's better to have an image than not, and this is currently what we have. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We had this debate several months ago on the German Wikipedia. Although I don't consider the picture in question to be pornographic, it is not particularly well lit, so it is not a very GOOD picture, from a technical quality standpoint. It is not as though the article would completely lack illustration if the photo were deleted, as we do have the two drawings/paintings. I don't mind leaving the picture in, either, but I will not battle as hard to preserve a photo of poor technical quality as I would to preserve a better illustration.--Bhuck (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I accidentally visited this page today and see this debate. I read your criticism and I will try creating a high quality picture, but first I will have to figure out how to compose the frame better. If anyone has any suggestions, please share. Nataloi (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

the three sailors

The "Three sailors urinating" picture has nothing to do with the urolagnia paraphilia? It seems that they are just pissing in the street. The painter Charles Demuth was homosexual, so maybe he got excited looking at it, but the actual image is not depicting any urolagnia-related act. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This drawing does not depict the topic. I intend to remove it, and to repost the photo of the guy pissing on himself, since the photo depicts the topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaced. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture

This section is kind of lame. There are multiple "mainstream" movies that depict urophilia. One of these is "Si te dicen que cai" (If They Tell You I Fell) with Jorge Saenz, Victoria Abril, and Antonio Banderas, which has a scene quite explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.222 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Or we could not include such a section at all unless the works have been mentioned in secondary literature as significant to Urolagnia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitler under Notable Section?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Adolf_hitler#Sexuality

That section of Hitler's articles says that he could have had this fetish. The fact that a political friend denied it and a political opponent claimed it to be true doesn't really tell us much. Could we add that Adolf Hitler could have had this fetish? 98.95.174.14 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's been removed several times. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the reply. 98.95.174.14 (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is the song lyrics by band Garbage not considered a reliable source?

I added the following section:

• Garbage – An alternative rock band led by singer Shirley Manson. Their song "When I Grow Up" contains the lyrics "Happy Hours/Golden Showers".

And got quickly removed by Editor AndyTheGrump, His Edit summary: "not a reliable source for anything"

Why the lyrics of an established rock band are not considered a reliable source for what the lyrics themselves say? This appears like censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.123.79 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you've not cited a source for the lyrics. Secondly, there is no reason to see a reference in passing to 'golden showers' as evidence that any of the band members are in any way involved with urolagnia. Lyrics can contain all sorts of statements: do you think that Johnny Rotten really thought he was an Antichrist? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the fact that the lead singer herself was into the activity was important, as she had been mentioned in the article since 2009. Many editors since that continued to include her here until recently that you removed her. In an interview with Benedict Watts from Juice Magazine in 1998 She stated: "I want a man who will let me pee in his belly button". Sorry for contributing to the article. This place has changed a lot from the Wikipedia Jimbo build. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.123.79 (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if she said that in an interview, then you have a source don't you? Just provide the details for the publication. In itself the song lyric is too vague to be definitive, but added to the interview it might be relevant. Paul B (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

not confirmed statements cited as "true"

Credits upon the censorship in NZ appear to be false statements. Cited pages doesn't exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloishochwald (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If so, please delete the statement, do NOT write your opinion in the article itself. Pablo (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is technically no such thing as a felony under New Zealand law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.245.115 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement about NZ is utter garbage. The first citation is difficult to navigate and worthless, the second says it is only an offence if the material is degrading in nature, and the third is not specifically about urolagnia - the maximum penalty would not be used for depiction urolagnia, but rather the more serious offences in the Act such as torture. It also amounts to original research in a way by drawing a conclusion from two sources. It should be removed or altered. I may do it myself later if nobody objects. 138.130.100.81 (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just removed it. eug (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"... promoting or supporting " --??? Seems those NZ links refer to DEPICTION if anything. I saw nothing about it applying to mere "promoting or supporting." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.224.194 (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Previous discussion indicate a consensus to have pictures in the article. However they have been removed without discussion or agreement. I would like to propose that File:Golden Shower.jpg, File:20pantyo.jpg, and File:Pissing_in_a_glass.jpg be added to the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Urolagnia in Urination and Urine

Urolagnia is currently only mentioned in Urination in one line as a subject for pornography, and completely ignored in Urine. I have created the following discussions regarding coverage in those articles, and would welcome contributions to the discussions @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urination#Urination_in_Sex &http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urine#Urine_in_Sex_-_Consensus_discussion 93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested name change to Watersports (sex)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved: insufficient support. DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Urolagnia → Watersports (sex) – I propose this move for three reasons. Firstly Watersports (sex) is a more accurate description of the content here which is not limited to urolangia, but covers different sexual behaviors with urine, secondly because urolangia is a medical term relating to a problematic interest, and thirdly because watersports is the popular term. Watersports (bdsm) already redirects here, but Watersports (sex) seems more neutral.87.194.46.83 (talk) 06:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't necessarily a BDSM practice. I think it's here because this is the technical term for the proclivity, but WP:COMMONNAME might suggest a move, unless "watersports" is considered "vulgar". -mattbuck (Talk) 11:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it either way, frankly. However, that's not the only slang term used. Is there evidence that it's dominant? Paul B (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This article is about a specific paraphilia. 'Watersports' is not only slang, but ill-defined slang at that. Is there actually a reliable source (i.e. an academic one which discusses it in detail) which even defines the term? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump consistently makes edits as follows - "(revert - this article is about a paraphilia, and should say so)". On this basis I suggest the renaming, with the paraphilia Urolagnia as a section within "Watersports" - which currently redirects here! A Paraphilia is a psychiatric condition which causes distress to the person who suffers from it - lots of people enjoy watersports without any problems, especially since the internet enabled them to find other people who enjoy them. On google watersports and sex gets 6mil hits "golden showers" gets 3 mil, "piss play gets 410k urolangia gets 45k. Watersports (sex) or "piss play" seem the most inclusive name for the article, since they seem to cover everything you might want to do in this way, and watersports is more popular, and possibly the least offensive. With regard to an academic source that discusses watersports in detail, I do not see why that is relevant given WP:COMMONNAME. The chicago tribune wrote in 2008 "The intermingling of sex and urine -- known by the euphemism "watersports" -- has been around for centuries, but it still makes most people cringe. ." [[1]]87.194.46.83 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by suggesting that I "consistently makes edits as follows..."? I made the edit once. As for your definition of 'paraphilia', it does not appear to be that of the psychiatric profession, as far as I'm aware - and neither is it the definition given in our article on the subject. I suggest you read it again more carefully. And as for renaming, you have yet to provide the academic source I asked for that defines the term 'watersports' in a way that covers the topic of our article. The source you cite is neither academic, nor actually much use in this discussion given that it is behind a paywall. If all it says is that "watersports" involves "the intermingling of sex and urine" it isn't much of a definition. Without a clear definition of what 'watersports' means, your Google statistics are even more nonsensical than such statistics usually are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry - it is not just you, but others as well. The definition of 'paraphilia is a matter of debate. the article says "In the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), a paraphilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others.", but it also says that something similar was said when homosexuality was included in the DSM, and that many view this as perjorative.

That said, there seems to be a distinction between the medical term Urolagnia which seems to refer to the condition of being sexually excited by, or enjoying, sex play with urine, and Watersports which refers to the activity itself, and by extension the desire to participate in it. Given that this article refers to both activity and excitement, it would seem logical to use the inclusive name. A search of google scholar produces many more results for watersports and sex than Urolagnia, and 32 results for wastersports and Urolagnia. I do not see what is unclear about "the intermingling of sex and urine"- is similar to the definition we have already. This page currently has redirects from watersports (BDSM), piss play, and probably many more. If this is not suitable material to cover in this article, then a new one should be made. http://www.allwords.com/word-watersports.html - "(context, sex, slang) Sexual activity involving urine or urination." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/watersport watersports, ( used with a singular or plural verb ) Slang . sexual activity that typically involves urinating on or being urinated on by others. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/water%2Bsports?q=water+sports UK & US english 2 informal sexual activity involving urination. On the other hand, http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/urolagnia " a tendency to derive sexual pleasure from the sight or thought of urination. " this also makes no mention that it is a paraphilia. http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/urolagnia ": sexual excitement associated with urine or with urination" - pls note is in the MEDICAL section. 87.194.46.83 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Found this source that says " Contemporary literature now describes golden showers as a sexual water sport." -[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.46.83 (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. The source you cite in turn cites 'www.urbandictionary.com' and 'www.chooseasextoy.com' as sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the source is the Jamaican newspaper the Gleaner[[3]]. Do you question this, or the reliability of the newspaper itself as a source?87.194.46.83 (talk) 12:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You believe? You'll have to do better than that. And yes, I would not accept The Gleaner for this kind of "news", certainly not if they cite that kind of stuff. If it were in my power I'd yank that person's Ph.D. from her. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The website appears to be a genuine newspaper site. Do you object to the Gleaner because it is Jamaican, or for some other reason? Urbandictionary cited by a reliable source does not diminish the reliability of the source. This article is rather short of sources at the moment, and reliable secondary sources are rare on this subject. They are to be preferred to primary sources.87.194.46.83 (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Watersports is too ambiguous. Wiktionary:watersport q.v.. --Bejnar (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. A difficult one, on one hand we have a technical term and on the other hand a rather esoteric piece of jargon, but I think the technical term wins out in terms of the number of people who'll recognise it, so in terms of WP:AT, Urolagnia should remain the title. Andrewa (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree in terms of recognition and i do not see how 'Watersports (sex)" is ambiguous. Try to say Urolagnia, or even to spell it and you see what I mean about recognition- Wiktionary:watersport gives the definition "A sexual practice involving urine " and Wiktionary:urolagnia redirects to Wiktionary:undinism defined as "(psychology) sexual arousal by water, especially urination".87.194.46.83 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Demuth

The subject of this picture has already been discussed in the "three sailors" section above. As was stated there, it does not depict the topic. They are just urinating in the street. The reverting edit summary was "no. See, if the image is erotic and consists of urinating, then it represents this fetish. You can also see one urinating on another." That's a spurious argument. The three sailors are urinating in the street, as often happens when lads go out and get drunk. It is not a depiction of urolagnia, unlike the other image which clearly depicts the actual subject of the article. I've no idea whether or not Demuth was aroused by urinating. He may just have been aroused by large penises, and the urinating just provided an excuse to depict them on display. There is no evidence that any of the sailors are urinating "on" any other. I do think Demuth is exploiting ambiguity of perspective to make a suggestion of it, but it is clear that this is a genre scene of drunken sailors peeing in the street. The figure on the left is clearly peeing behind the other's back. If he was actually peeing on him, don't you think the guy on the receiving end might possibly have noticed?! He's looking the other way at his pal on the right. None of the characters are looking at any other character's "equipment". The painting represents the artist's homosexual desires, for sure, but not those of the characters depicted in it. In this respect is is like Rembrandt's Woman Urinating etching [4]. It does not depict urolagnia, just a woman relieving herself, and it is impossible to say whether or not the theme was chosen because the artist / patron / consumer might be turned-on by that, or just by the vicarious voyeurism of an eyeful of female private parts. If you think there should be an image of the 'gay' version of the fetish as well as the 'straight' one, fine. Find one that actually depicts it. Paul B (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ricky Martin

Source says he likes "giving it" but it is also true that his type like "taking it" as well. Hopehoppy (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopehoppy, disregarding the fact that what you just said is incredibly homophobic and offensive, it is not what the reference says, and his sexuality is completely irrelevant to the matter. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If I can pick up on a couple of points here. Martin is allegedly "proud" to be gay. So why should mention of the status be in any way offensive unless of course he is not as proud as he convinces himself to be. There are indeed times where gays claim "pride" so as to deny the shame of their illness. Obviously they never like it when someone calls them "a couple of queers", but the German national football squad, genuinely proud to be world champions since 2014, do not get offended when people call them "world cup champions" because it was their aim, and is their pride. So if homosexuality is Martin's pride, let it be stated. Also, I am not homophobic, and yes I do like gay people, just not very much that's all. Hopehoppy (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You are homophobic, as your posts here have quite conclusively shown. This is clear by your wording "his type", "illness", the fact that you describe Martin as "a homosexual", etc. It's about dehumanising a group of people, and you seem quite adept at it. One can be proud of something but still have that characteristic used in a demeaning manner by someone else, and that is clearly how you intend it.

As for the inclusion, one can be proud of something without it being remotely relevant. I'm proud of having a PhD, but unless we're discussing academia, it's not really relevant. To use your example, the German world cup team are famous for being the German world cup team. Ricky Martin is famous for being a singer. It just so happens that he's gay, but that's not why he's famous.

Tell me this, how does it make the article more useful to include Martin's sexuality? Stating that he's a singer is reasonable - that's why he's famous. But saying that he's gay isn't relevant - he's not famous for that, and it doesn't affect whether he is quoted as liking golden showers. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not homophobic. I am sceptic but not phobic, cuz I ain't scared of them. Maybe I am anti-hetero and anti-self too then, because a hetro is "my type". Congrats of obtaining your PhD, now start acting like someone with this diploma and not someone still in third grade. OK. I know what Ricky Martin and the German football team are all famous for, I was on about what his pride is as he claims. For instance in my case, I am proud of my Lexus. As such, nobody can make anything demeaning about me or the Lexus because the more they try the more I like love it. Right. Maybe the article is not helped by stating Martin is gay and perhaps it should not be included. (Redacted) Hopehoppy (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Urolagnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080321150936/http://www.encyclopedia.com:80/doc/1O87-urolagnia.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-urolagnia.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2017

Donald Trump has been reported to be a urophiliac. Mcf295 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done This has been discussed before, and the consensus is not to include this information. The allegations right now are unsubstantiated, and the dossier itself is not considered a reliable source. Including this information would be a flagrant violation of policy. Bradv 17:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity Urine / Negative Tone

Could we remove Ian Watkins and Albert Fish from this? This is a harmless fetish that gives pleasure to many consenting adults. Mentioning two of it's practitioners who are paedophiles, one a serial murderer, is needlessly horrible. Paedophile rapists no more belong here than they would in any other general sex article. Neither of these people had normal sex lives, by any standards. I'll remove them from the list later if nobody has a good reason not to.

I'd also request that people who find the subject disgusting, unpleasant, or simply not to their taste, go find another page. While the article doesn't need to be a recruiting ad, neutral is the expected tone, not derision.

188.29.165.0 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't remove content because a contributor finds it objectionable - and I suspect that if we did, there wouldn't be an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a matter of simple objection. I am arguing that it is not relevant for the article. Are murderers and paedophiles who have particular sexual tastes, usually included in those Wikipedia articles? Do we put rapists and paedophiles in the articles for vaginal / oral / anal sex? Or any other sex articles?

As is widely accepted, rape is not sex. The peccadilloes of sex criminals do not belong in normal sex articles. They are pathologies, not simple preference. On those grounds, I would ask the two paedophiles mentioned be removed. If there is a policy on this, I would be glad to see it. If not, I want this brought to arbitration. 188.29.165.0 (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is this page BUGGY? CrazyMinecart88 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

gg allin should be metioned among the people

gg allin should be metioned among the people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.137.172 (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

R Kelly

R Kelly’s article says:

<quote>On February 3, 2002, a video surfaced allegedly showing Kelly engaging in sex with, and urinating on, an underage girl. The story, which was released by an unknown source, was sent to the Chicago Sun-Times, the newspaper that broke the story on February 8, 2002.</quote>

Does this qualify him for the Notable Urophiliacs section? 2600:1004:B069:1B82:F017:A9B8:AB1F:66D8 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED per discussion below. Station1 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Urolagnia → Urine and Human Sex – Shift from Psychiatric disorder to "Non-judgmental descriptive title." Golden Showers, and Water Sports redirect to this page. Currently the title is the name of a psychiatric disorder so this would "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words". It would also help with structuring the article as the disorder could be given it's own section. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• • Or possibly "Erotic Urination, in line with Erotic Lactation. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose at least the proposed title. "Urine and Human Sex" sounds more like a rock band or a romantic novel than a sexual fetish. At the very least use proper capitalization: "urine and human sex". But anyway I don't see anything wrong with the current title "urolagnia". JIP | Talk 11:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:Common name. Before I saw this move proposal, I told you on your talk page to not start up this type of editing again. I mean it. I will take you straight to WP:ANI. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Common name, and it is a psychiatric illness. Don't try to whitewash this. Starting again on the same behaviors that got you blocked does not bode well. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Common name,F22 and Brangifer. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a psychiatric illness related to this practice, just as there is to eating, and many other things. The OED simply defines Urolagnia "A tendency to derive sexual pleasure from the sight or thought of urination.", making no mention of illness. Perhaps the article does not need to be renamed, simply edited to correct the misdescription as illness. I would like to remind participants in this discussion of the rule against personal attacks. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 10:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Regarding WP:Common name, Google News gives 358 results for urolagnia, and 237,000 for "Golden showers". Google books gives 16.500 results for "golden showers" and 4,060 results for urolagnia. I do not propose renaming the article to "Golden Showers", but to a neutral, but understandable term. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 10:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Google gives three results for the proposed title "Urine and Human Sex", two of which are links to this discussion on Wikipedia. Therefore if we go by Google results the proposed title is an even worse solution. My opinion is that this article should stay at urolagnia. JIP | Talk 13:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Perhaps you are right. Having discovered that the article was wrong to claim urolagnia means a psychiatric disorder, I am more content with the title. Golden showers is a lot more popular, but only covers a limited range of the activities covered here, so I would not propose it. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Donald Trump

There seem to be over 3,000 news references over the past 3 years to accusations that Donald Trump took part in golden showers, . https://www.google.com/search?biw=1722&bih=997&tbm=nws&ei=-tstXYK5GcLZwQKqjaxI&q=%22golden+showers%22+donald+trump&oq=%22golden+showers%22+donald+trump. It was claimed in a previous discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Urolagnia/Archive_2#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_17_January_2017 that "This has been discussed before, and the consensus is not to include this information.", however I can find no other discussion. Given the extensive reliable sources, should the accusations be mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems that a court has ruled such claims are not libellous in the USA https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ce56cdd1-37c4-4c76-9c24-3f75be11988c ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 14:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The mention of those accusations has been done properly at Trump–Russia_dossier. It doesn't belong here, unless it becomes a much larger issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Many people like to coatrack Trump into weird articles; that needs to be strongly resisted. It would add nothing of encyclopedic importance to this topic, even if there were a shred of evidence to support the gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It's notable to the topic of Donald Trump, but in the context of the topic of urolagnia, it's Trivia. --Slashme (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

A paraphilia

The consensus is that the lede and overview should characterise urolagnia as a paraphilia.

Cunard (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

L'Origine du monde, regarding this, this, and this, stop removing that urolagnia is a paraphilia. It is a paraphilia. Point blank. A number of academic sources, including one I added to the lead, are clear about that. And like I stated to you, the DSM-5 distinguishes "paraphilia" and "paraphilic disorder." It is the paraphilic disorder aspect that it relates to harm. A paraphilia is still a paraphilia regardless of whether or not it causes harm. So your "If such desires cause problems for a person, it can be classed as a paraphilia." text is incorrect. It is classified as a paraphilia regardless.

Pinging JIP, BullRangifer and Roxy the dog for their views on this matter since they weighed in on the above move discussion, which also concerns the medical aspect, and so that it's not just me and L'Origine du monde discussing this. I will also alert WP:Med to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that L'Origine du monde has been blocked for a month by Bishonen. Thank you, Bishonen. I was just about to take this editor to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• From the article paraphilia:
  Paraphilia (previously known as sexual perversion and sexual deviation) is the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals. Such attraction may be labeled sexual fetishism.
  Nowhere does it say that a paraphilia is necessarily a good or bad thing. It simply factly states that it is an unusual form of sexual desire. Therefore I stand by my original opinion leaving this article under the title urolagnia is correct. JIP | Talk 21:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

JIP, yeah, as noted in the Paraphilia article, a paraphilia can be a bad thing if it causes distress or other harm, but it's not always automatically a bad thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand why you believe that it is important that Urolagnia should be defined as a paraphiliac disorder. We are using a psychiatric term to describe a spectrum of sexual practice. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 04:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sighs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC Is Urolagnia inherently paraphiliac?

Should the lede and overview characterise Urolagnia as a paraphilia, or as a sexual tendency?

The overview currently starts "Urolagnia is a paraphilia." The lede currently starts "Urolagnia (also urophilia, undinism, golden shower and watersports) is a paraphilia in which sexual excitement is associated with the sight or thought of urine or urination." The OED defines Urolagnia as "A tendency to derive sexual pleasure from the sight or thought of urination." The OED defines Paraphilia as "A condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities." ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 04:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• sexual tendency While Urolagnia can be a paraphilia, it can also be unproblematic. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 04:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• It's a paraphilia. I'm not going to state anything more on this than what I stated above. We adhere to WP:MEDRS for topics like these, not dictionaries. Do stop engaging in advocacy on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support paraphilia as that is what Dorland's says[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
• paraphilia per above—when medically reliable sources describe urination as merely another reason for sexual excitement, Wikipedia can too. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
• paraphilia per medically reliable sources. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
• paraphilia per medically reliable refereces--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
• Close. I was $\to \,\gets$ this close to closing the RfC, but I'd instead like to give L'Origine du monde the chance to do so per WP:RFCEND #1. L'Odm, consensus seems pretty clear that "paraphilia" is supported by reliable sources, both in designation and in not automatically implying some sort of disorder. Would you be willing to close this and move on? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
• Seems to me that the whole idea needs rethinking, in view of the responses so far. Instead of choosing one option or another, mention the controversy of whether it should be seen as paraphilia, or whatever the alternatives might be. It is not a matter to be decided categorically by any one camp's preferences outside consideration of alternatives. JonRichfield (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Pinging JIP, BullRangifer and Roxy the dog from the above move discussion since this RfC also concerns the psychiatric disorder matter. Will also alert WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Why label erotic practices psychiatric disorders? This article is about all sexual activity involving urine. It has a title derived from an early C20 medical term. It shares that term with a Paraphilia listed in the DSMIV. This is something worthy of developing in the article, and of inclusion in the lede once that has been done. I am not sure that Cosmo is a reliable source, https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sexopedia/a13091141/golden-shower-facts/ but there is also the New York Times - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/world/americas/bolsonaro-carnival-brazil.html ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, is there a rule that Wikipedia articles on human sexuality should prioritise medical references over other reliable sources, such as the oxford english dictionary? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, this article describes urination as merely another consequence of sexual excitement. Is it the kind of source we use? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25545022 ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 18:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

If I may just insert a comment here, on the question of medically reliable sources (WP:MEDRS), it depends on the material you are referencing/supporting. Health claims must use MEDRS, and it seems to me that much of this article falls under it. OED for health claims, not so much. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy, the dog. What do you think falls under a "health claim" in this article? . ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

What other branch of science might be suitable for this topic? Or should no science be involved, only views by onlookers who have not studied the field? Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I promote a balanced view. I think the psychiatric view of sex can be balanced by, for example, material from national newspapers. The article is about the whole spectrum of urine and sexuality, and I think it is lacking in cultural references. For example, it lacks any mention of the prohibition of urolangic pornography in the UK.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Some medical sources - Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2016, Vol. 28(1) 20–45 says

"A paraphilic interest is generally defined as a sexual interest in an atypical target (e.g., articles of clothing, children) or activity (e.g., hurting a partner, looking at an unsuspecting person); when this interest becomes long-standing, persistent, and necessary for sexual enjoyment, it is considered a paraphilia (e.g., fetishism, pedophilia, sadism, voyeurism). When the paraphilia results in significant distress or impairment of functioning, it is considered a paraphilic disorder ( (American PsychiatricAssociation, 2013)

and SexInfo Online, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA says

It is important to recognize that urophilia is not always considered paraphilia. As with all paraphilias in the PNOS category, diagnosis is only made if the sexual urges, fantasies, or behavior cause significant distress or impairment in social and occupational functioning. Fantasies, objects, and behaviors are considered paraphilic when they are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, involve non-consenting partners, lead to legal complications, or interfere with social relationships.

♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• People here may be interested that a search for "sexual tendency" (with the quotes, exact matching) only returned 4 matches in article space (2 of which were using it in this meaning, 2 differently). The 2 articles using it in this sense are Algolagnia and Autosadism (NSFW lead images in each). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Please add the following hatnote to the top of the article:

This article is about "watersports" (sexual activity involving urination). For "water sports" (sports involving water), see List of water sports.

Thank you in advance. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Urination

Possibly should add something more recent..... Whimpers2854 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

ICD-10

I'm going through articles that have {{infobox medical condition}}, but not {{medical resources}}. I'm reluctant to "just add" diagnostic codes to articles of sexual behaviour without posting on talk first. Whilst there is no specific code in ICD-10 for urolagina there is a catch-all code available F65.8 (should there be consensus to add). (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a mental illness. It would be, if it took over your life, and you kept getting arrested for wetting yourself in the supermarket. If it involved non-consenting people, and got you into trouble with the law. But as another thing to do in private, with consenting adults, there's nothing wrong with it and no harm caused. Things are only mental illnesses if they cause damage to your life, but you can't stop them.

For people like Albert Fish, I would really prefer if he were in some article about sex crimes and pathologies. You don't include "Against a wall with a knife on their throat" in a list of sexual positions. He's a world away, and not relevant, in an article about ordinary sex.

84.70.172.53 (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

wikiproject physiology

Why is this part of wikiproject physiology, particularly the kidneys and renal system? It's an article about piss, for sexual gratification. There's nothing here about kidney stones or the colour of urine or it's proper contents or anything like that. Yes, piss is made in the kidneys, very good. But that's nothing to do with the subject. It could be made in any organ, the fact it streams from the genitals, that it's usually a private thing, that it's dirty and "wrong", those are all reasons it appeals. It's no more relevant to a project on renal physiology, than an article about Cornflakes would be to the rectum (since that's where Cornflakes eventually end up).

There is nothing in this article of interest to a student of physiology or kidneys. They already know that's where wee-wee comes from. Any more physiological information would belong in an appropriate article, not here, and that's why there isn't any. I don't imagine the people on that project are thrilled to have this as part of it. Remove the connection. God knows what sort of over-enthusiastic nutcase formed that link in the first place. I suspect he'll end up reading this and will argue back, and him being some sort of mod, his opinion will over-rule mine. Because Wikipedia gives power to anyone who asks for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.172.53 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed the template from this talk page because I believe that other articles cover the physiological aspects of the urinary system, while this one is strictly in the realm of psychology and sexuality and has nothing to do with physiology.

But cool it with the emotional appeals. This is an encyclopedia. Frogging101 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)