Editing Talk:Erotic target location error

{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|psychiatry=yes}}
}}
{{DSM copyright}}

== Self-cite ==
I should note that among the RS's I have added to the main page, is one of which I am the first author.  This is permissible under [[WP:COI]], but I felt I should not it here.<br>
[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 05:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

== See Also ==

I removed the link to "furry fandom".  Though I agree there is some marginal relevance, citing a large and diverse fan-base with a mental disorder is extremely over-broad.  The proportion of members of the subculture who engage in "fursuit sex" (to which I presume this refers) is believed to be very small from numerous large-scale polls at the larger gatherings, and there's no evidence to suggest the subculture contains a larger proportion of individuals who fetishize non-human components w.r.t. self or partner than outsiders.

Related mental disorders, fetishes, or sex-specific subcultures which focus on non-existent targets may be appropriate here, such as transvestism, infantilism, or extreme body-modification done for sexual purposes (or even links to media such as films which concern these).  I'm not going to add links to these, but I'm removing the one that doesn't track.

Discuss here if there is disagreement before reverting. [[User:TricksterWolf|TricksterWolf]] ([[User talk:TricksterWolf|talk]]) 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

== This article seems like a tail without a head ==

It looks like this article collects a grab bag of weird phenomena, but ignores more common instances of the same thing.  For every amputee fetishist there must be a million people who take some kind of weird erotic pleasure from having piercings or tattoos or scarification, etc.  For every "furry" I imagine there must be hundreds of people who take some pleasure in being hairy or long-haired.  I don't know this field, but I would assume that every group that is weird enough to be notable should be associated with some other group that is common enough to be ignored.  Can you link this content to explanations about makeup, impractical shoes, jewelry, leather clothing and so forth?  (I understand of course that as in genetics the weird case is what illuminates the commonplace, but one also needs to have an understanding of the commonplace to understand the weird...) [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 18:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
:Well, the nominal subject of the article is "having a sexual preference or strong sexual interest in features that are somewhere other than on one's sexual partners" (isn't that roughly the definition of [[sexual fetishism]]?), but it only actually discusses the subset of fetishes where one fantasizes about oneself "in another physical form." It also reads like a [[Wikipedia:POV fork|POV fork]] for the controversial theories of [[Ray Blanchard|Blanchard]] and Lawrence, who appear to be the only authors in the references section that actually use the "ETLE" term (aside from the rebuttal of Lawrence by Moser, who explicitly criticizes the term). It would make more sense to mention Blanchard's controversial theories with appropriate weight in the other articles we have on sexual fetishism, and redirect this title to [[sexual fetishism]] itself. [[User:Fran Rogers|Fran Rogers]] ([[User talk:Fran Rogers|talk]]) 03:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
: Yes, these are basically just new versions of old terms.  Autogynephilia = transvestic fetishism disorder.  But if you say the words fetish and disorder then people will be offended.   The evolution of psychiatric terminology is interesting.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/97.91.188.153|97.91.188.153]] ([[User talk:97.91.188.153|talk]]) 15:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::That's easy to explain: "Paraphilia" is a highly biased, toxic social construct; so-called paraphilias are merely socially unaccepted sexual preferences. For example, the article [[breast fetishism]] fails to explain the difference between "highly atypical sexual interest focused on female breasts" and the typical form, which supports the suspicion that the division is artificial, pseudoscientific bunk. (In fact, the eroticisation of breasts is entirely culturally constructed: in cultures without a taboo surrounding the open display of breasts, men don't think of them as erotically charged in the first place.) "Paraphilia" is merely a euphemism used by bigoted psychiatrists and psychologist in place of "perversion". The word "fetish" is used to shame and ostracise; the word "disorder" is used to pathologise, infantilise and other. No wonder that trans women (trans men are hypocritically not targeted) will have none of that and resent the association. Even "autogynephilia" is ultimately still used to shame and pathologise gender variance – it's no less controversial than "transvestic fetishism" or "fetishtic disorder" because it's only an obscure euphemism for the same thing. Keep in mind that it's called "erotic target location ''error''" – the "erotic" part sexualises and shames, the "error" part explicitly pathologises trans women. The Blanchard school propagates the notion that queer trans women are only disgusting male perverts and straight trans women are hyperfeminine, equally perverted gay men. It's pure bigoted pseudoscience (just like now-discredited speculation about the psychological origin of homo- and bisexuality), which is apparent in the fallacious logic used by defenders, like when they equivocate between autoerotic gender-related fantasies (a phenomenon that's definitely real) and the "AGP theory", claiming that activists who reject the "theory" deny the existence of the former phenomenon, too. --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 15:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
:::Florian Blaschke, [[WP:NOT A FORUM]]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 12:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
::::Not sure why you keep slapping ''me'' with NOTAFORUM – a discussion involves more than one person. Looks like you've got it in for me. Maybe stop your stalkerish behaviour towards me? --[[User:Florian Blaschke|Florian Blaschke]] ([[User talk:Florian Blaschke|talk]]) 11:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
:::::How in the world am I stalking you when I have all of these articles on my watchlist? You know that I edit many sexual topics. I do not follow you. Nor do I have it "in for you." You, however, have followed me, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_hysteria&oldid=838643110#It_turns_out_that_one_of_the_central_premises_of_this_article_is_probably_false as acknowledged by you in the past]. If I "slap [you] with NOTAFORUM," it's because you deserve it. We have rules to follow. And you know by now what is a NOTAFORUM issue; you've been reminded of NOTAFORUM by enough people. Instead of engage you by pointing out how you are wrong about paraphilias, I decided to state "WP:NOT A FORUM," which, per [[WP:TALK]], is what should be done in cases like these. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 01:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
:::''Entirely'', Florian? You fall in the opposite trap, of thinking that features that are normally (i.e. culture-specific normally) on display cannot (by that fact alone) hold any erotic interest. Breasts are an important erogenous zone, whether or not their normal display is cultural norm. [[Special:Contributions/2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519|2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519]] ([[User talk:2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:C85D:E443:C575:6519|talk]]) 13:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

== AN/I and Tag-bombing by IP editor. ==

I have reported the repeated tag-bombing by the IP editor to AN/I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_editor_tag-bombing_of_Erotic_target_location_error here].  Because I cannot alert the IP editor (IP editors have no talk pages), I am posting the notification template here:<br><br>
[[Image:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.
<br><br>[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 20:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

==Tags==
There have been many tags and re-tags of this article, despite there being no discussion of the issues over many months.  I'd like to remove them, if there is no remaining issue.[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 21:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

== Grammar error - locked for editing ==

"mismatched to" should be "mismatched with". [[Special:Contributions/86.159.197.174|86.159.197.174]] ([[User talk:86.159.197.174|talk]]) 19:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

== Relevance ==

I feel like the article should lead with some evidence that this is a real concept. [[Blanchard's transsexualism typology]] resembles more what I'd expect it to look like - it's important to note who it is that claims this as a distinct paraphilia. [[User:Kuralesache|Kuralesache]] ([[User talk:Kuralesache|talk]]) 09:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
:The source provided, Lawrence, defines it as a "paraphilic dimension", coined and conceptualized by Blanchard. Shouldn't this be enough to answer the "by whom?" tag? what else is missing? am i missing something? - <code>[[User:Daveout|'''Daveout''']]</code><small>[[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40">(talk)</span>]]</small> 10:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
::Is the notability of this article based solely on Lawrence being a known name in the field? If there's a good reason that the term is notable it should be clear where the consensus on this idea is. ok it's a hypothesis so it wouldn't be the DSM or a large organization, but is this Lawrence/Blanchard pair actually important for any reason? if their ideas took hold with anyone, it's probably worth mentioning here, or if they had any impact... basically at this point I think the article fails [[Wikipedia:Notability]], particularly on the point about secondary sources [[User:Kuralesache|Kuralesache]] ([[User talk:Kuralesache|talk]]) 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
:::I think we are taking about two different things. I was concerned with the {by whom} tag only. For me, it's very clear that the concept was created by Blanchard (and I see no reason to put that tag there, is there any?). 
:::Whereas you're questioning the notability of the article itself, <s>and i agree that it is poorly sourced and written.</s> It's probably best to extract the few relevant parts of it and put them in Blanchard's main article (and delete this one). - <code>[[User:Daveout|'''Daveout''']]</code><small>[[User talk:Daveout|<span style="color:#333b40">(talk)</span>]]</small> 19:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
::::They're the same question to me, because the people pushing the hypothesis are the people who would qualify it as notable. I kind of arrived at notability in a roundabout way, but the red flag to me was that it's not clear who is pushing the term as valid, and that's not the same thing as just coining the term. It seems Blanchard not only coined the term but also believes that it corresponds to some real phenomena, so my issue was that Blanchard using the term didn't actually do much to provide evidence that the paraphilia is "hypothesized" to exist. Maybe it's pedantic, I think the notability tag is all I should have done in the first place, but it jumped out at me specifically that there was no claim "hypothesized by the medical community" or anything to give the word "hypothesized" weight or real meaning, Blanchard's coining of the term seems unrelated to that problem (or, if it was rewritten as "hypothesized by a grand total of 2 controversial academics", it would make the notability issue glaringly obvious) [[User:Kuralesache|Kuralesache]] ([[User talk:Kuralesache|talk]]) 22:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::Scholar.google yields [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22erotic+target+location+error%22&btnG= >80 academic pubs], from a wide variety of authors.[[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 23:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

== Merge? ==

See [[Talk:Blanchard's_transsexualism_typology#Merge_ETLE_to_here_and_rename?]] [[User:-sche|-sche]] ([[User talk:-sche|talk]]) 19:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

== Merge proposal ==
This concept overlap and [[Blanchard's transsexualism typology]] already describes many or all concepts formally coined by Blanchard. For instance, [[Talk:Homosexual transsexual#Should this article be merged with Blanchard's transsexualism typology?|HsTs was merged]] already, and other articles as well. This concept also conflates [[Fetish|fetishes]] and [[Paraphilia|paraphilias]] as if they were all adjacent to [[objectophilia]].

[[Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive 10#h-Merge ETLE to here and rename?-20230426191100|Last discussion]] wasn't specific about this article. [[User:Abesca|Abesca]] ([[User talk:Abesca|talk]]) 00:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

:*Oppose. Blanchards typology aside, ETLE is still a hypothesis that could explain things like auto-pedophilia. Merging doesn't seem sensible. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 00:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:*:[[Autopedophilia]] is about to be deleted anyways. [[User:Abesca|Abesca]] ([[User talk:Abesca|talk]]) 01:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:*::Yes, and it would make sense to redirect it here. Merging all ETLE subtypes into transsexualism typology is illogical. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 21:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:<small>Note: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|WikiProject Sexology and sexuality]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology|WikiProject Psychology]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies|WikiProject Gender studies]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies]], and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force|WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force]] have been notified of this discussion. [[User:Abesca|Abesca]] ([[User talk:Abesca|talk]]) 05:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)</small>
== "[[:Autopedophilia]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autopedophilia&redirect=no Autopedophilia]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 8#Autopedophilia}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span><span style="font-size:115%">[[User talk:Jay| 💬]]</span> 12:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)