Talk:Erotic hypnosis

Neologism

Neologism? A cult word? Is this material better covered elsewhere? --Wetman 00:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this better covered elsewhere?

I was thinking that actually. In most of the online community the phrase 'Hypnofetishism' is not used as the main word. Is there any way to rename the topic?

Although the Hypnofetishism is sometimes associated with erotic behivour, the links are slighty baised as it only covers erotic hypnosis. Futher more, the "Hypnosis in media" link has been removed as it is now missing. I will try to find MC fanfiction of a more descent nature, however i suggest other users do the same as it is difficult to filter the adult sites from the normal ones -Dynamo_ace

I would say that the main reason that adult sites are hard to filter from normal here, is that the very word "fetish", relates to specific experiences and objects intended to either initiate or enhance sexual arousal. In fact the clinical definition of 'fetish' implies a psychoerotic pathology defined by the fact that without the object/situation of the fetish being present, no sexual response can be obtained by the 'sufferer'. Therfore would it be better off in Psychopathology, Deviant Behavior, a new section called Hypno-BDSM/Hypno-sex, or Strange Erotic Practices is my question? -Hypnosystemsuk

Well, I am sure that many people who enjoy erotic hypnosis do not have a hypnosis fetish in the DSM-IV sense of the word. Therefore, I don't think it would be a good idea to move the entry to psychopathology. I also think the DSM-IV is moving away from classifying things using the perjorative language of "Deviant Behavior." I suggest calling the entry "erotic hypnosis" and consolidating the hypnofetishim/hypnofetishist listing under that entry, with a mention that some people are fetishists, but some just enjoy it as another variation.

Dana (dana2k_us@yahoo.com)

Precisely. It's inappropriate for wikipedia to insert subtle editorializing, such as categorizing certain sexual practises as normal and others as deviant behavior. It's not our place to judge that. NPOV is crucial when dealing with off-the-beaten-path activities and behaviors. -Kasreyn 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking to commercial websites

As of yesterday evening a user attempted to edit the article in an attempt, according to his edit summary, to redact links to outside sites as "self-promotion", and not appropriate on Wikipedia. The edit was I think improperly done, and removed nearly half the article, including all external links. I reverted it to the prior version. Nevertheless, this brings up the issue of linking to outside websites. While some sites, like mcstories.com, obviously merit being linked to this article, we ought to have a discussion about whether commercial providers, such as Hypnodommes and so forth, ought to be linked here. I'm opening up this topic on the discussion page to see what the consensus is. Tommythegun 13:22 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the notability standard should be, for any subculture, how important a certain site is in that subculture's community, and how much useful information content it has. The problem is, how do you go about ascertaining that? I'd say we'd need input from the subculture in question to even begin.

For starters, I'd definitely agree that the emcsa should be retained. It seems to be the oldest and largest of these sites. As for the others, following links can be done even by someone with no knowledge of the subject, and if the site is an obvious spam or advertisement site, then it can be removed. Kasreyn 19:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I'd like to apologise for wiping most of the article. That certainly wasn't my intention. Secondly, I've already written a reply to this once, but Firefox decided to crash on me.

The Wikipedia policy is clear in that nobody should use articles to advertise themselves or anything else. In this case, an edit was made by Isabellavalentine adding 'isabellavalentine.com. It's clear that this was self-promotion and advertising by that person and I have mentioned this on their Talk page. I agree with both of your points, however, that sites such as mcstories should be kept - if only because they're free sites which do not set out to make profit, unlike the aforementioned advertisement edit. Basically, if people are making money from their websites and they're not well-established community resources, then they should be removed. This isn't my own personal feeling, but Wikipedia's own policy. (What Wikipedia is not is a good start.

Thanks for reading.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 10:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to maintain links in this article to several community web sites, including mcstories, mcforum.net, and inraptured.com. I have also tried to maintain links to non-fiction articles other educational resources related to this topic (like the FAQ on Hypnotic Dreams.com and the articles on Oyster&Chocolate.com). Some of these links have been included in this article for over two years, but when I tried to restore them (4 times) today, my efforts were undone within a matter of minutes. Mesmer7 —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Your additions fail to meet WP:EL standards; they are inadmissible. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

These links are legitimate community resources, NOT SPAM. Some of these links have been part of this article for over a year, some for over 2 years. If you can't tell the difference between spam and a legitimate community resource, then you have no business editing this article.

"Community resources" such as forums do not meet WP EL guidelines. The links in the warnings I've given you would inform you of this, if you bothered to read them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at wiki talk so apologies if I goof up or commit some sort of transgression. With regard to external links, my site has been listed for well over a year. Occasionally it is removed but I had always thought maybe it was because it wasn't too popular with some of those who wish to profit from the erotic hypnosis/hypnodomination field. For the four years my site has been in existence, it has been 100 percent free. It will remain a 100 percent free MP3 and text resource for people interested in this subject. If a link to my site in the external links section of this article is inappropriate, then I would like to be informed and would appreciate understanding why.  :) http://www.ladyjulia.net Lady Julia 47 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Lady Julia 47

It would appear to me that individuals have been a tad bit over zealous removing external links. I have added back external links which I feel were unjustly removed by previous edits. The links I restored all are well run professional sites, none are selling anything. All provide some insight into the erotic hypnosis fetish and I consider them worthwhile resources for researching this topic. Is that not the mission of Wikipedia to provide an information resource? I think over the process of going back and forth deleting and restoring external links is a petty practice. It has lessened the value of this article. If someone feels the need to remove the external links I've restored, please also remove the link to my site "Erotic Hypnosis eZine" as there are more valuable resources out there, if you are going to remove any might as well remove them all. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagehand07 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. And remember to post talk page edits at the bottom of the thread. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why the link to my site is inappropriate? I see that it has been removed. http://www.ladyjulia.net Thanks. Lady Julia 47 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Lady Julia 47

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to contribute to the WP article rather than expecting wikipedia to be a spring-board to your site. Redblueball (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to solicit hits for my site. I thought that section was for resources and that is what my site is. No worries, I was just trying to be of help to those seeking information. Best wishes. ~ Lady Julia 47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.199.115 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much copied text

Large parts of this article are directly copied from Hypnosisinmedia.com, as well as other Wikipedia articles, so currently the entire section History (including Hypnosis on the Silver Screen) is just a scrapbook of text taken from other sources.

No idea what a synopsis of The Manchurian Candidate is doing in an article about hypnofetishism either, the article does seem to go off topic occasionally.

172.129.150.68 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Destructive overediting

Editor Lotusduck has repeatedly engaged in mass deletes of significant portions of this article, leaving it pretty well barren. I call it overediting, that materially diminishes the quality of the article and has left it largely barren and empty, describing almost nothing of what it intends. I'm not critiquing the necessity of the original research and unverified claims qualifiers and requirements for articles. In the case of this article, however, we are caught in a destructive Catch-22. Much of the citations usable will be critiqued as advertising or somesuch. Absent cites, edit puritans like Lotusduck come in with their wrecking ball, without adding any better material or improving the article. There needs to be a compromise. Over the next few days, absent any better ideas from anyone else, I'm looking to add back in material that's been lost in successive edits, and working to find reasonable cites and sources. We should have a time frame, for material that is brought back in, over which it can and should be left there and worked on to bring it into compliance before anyone gets all hot and bothered again and engages in more mass-deletes. I'm hoping that we can civilly work through this and constructively improve this article without acrimony. I want to avoid an edit war.

Could you give a good list of what sites and sources would be approved of? I've personally found the Realm of Bliss podcast to be extremely helpful in an informational way on the Erotic Hypnosis front. (12.207.82.157 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Too much confusion, not enough information...

About a year ago I came to this article to get a better grasp of the public perception of erotic hypnosis and left more confused than anything. Wikipedia is a wonderful forum for the dissemination of information, but I have great concerns about commercialism in some of the articles that I have seen.

When I decided that it would be interesting to try to contribute, I began to understand some of the problem. I literally searched for everything I could find on the internet about the subject. I checked with my library and even at Ohio State. While there are countless hypno-erotic commercial websites, there are only two serious published works on the subject, Peter Master's and Michael Scott's (no relation to the guy on the office, I emailed him and asked).

As a polite follow up to my rather goofy question, Mr. Scott was able to send me several articles on the subject of hypnotic exploration of sexual dysfunction and rape treatment and counseling, articles written for sex therapists about using hypnosis to induce sexual arousal and release inhibitions, but even those didn't address the subject of popular culture erotic hypnosis. The clinical material dances around the subject (even, surprisingly, the works written for sex therapists).

Finding only two credible sources for information, both more or less being how-to guides, I went back to the internet for one last look and, much to my disappointment, I found that hypnosisarticlesdirectory.com had taken down the one decent public article that had been available (censorship? morality concerns?). Frustrating !

I have been a vocal critic of under-referenced articles here and elsewhere. I have harped about articles citing only internet sources of information. No more !

I apologize to all of the authors who I have complained about, and in one case to, regarding their under-referenced works. If you have constructed a well written and informative article I will be, as I should have been, thankful for both your information and effort. I realize now (slow learner, I admit) that many subjects, especially ones new to the public eye (like Erotic Hypnosis) simply may not have more information available to be referenced. I suppose that this is one of the best uses for Wikipedia, making information available about new cutting edge topics, and I apologize for having missed this important point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneWrite (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What the heck is going on with this article?

"Recreational" is too broad of a term, since it would logically include stage hypnosis.

We need to compress them in articles, though, since there's a lot in common: stage hypnosis and erotic hypnosis are different than therapeutic hypnosis, and they're most often done for kicks (recreationally). However, erotic hypnosis and therapeutic hypnosis both more often involve intentions of a lasting change. There is an intersection called "sex therapy", which can be very, very helpful to people.

But but but but but PLEASE, PLEASE INCLUDE WARNINGS OF UNTRUSTWORTHY HYPNOTISTS. There are literally phone-sex hypnotists who trap people in sexual hypnosis, using it to financially dominate them. ...though, there's people who WANT to be financially dominated, but yeah, this is creepy territory. Don't let these Wikipedia pages become infamous for baiting people the way the one for auto-erotic asphyxiation did.

Lastly, there's a LOT of recreational hypnosis websites out there, so they should be in a separate page or something.

MoogleEarth (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete and start over

This is literally the worst Wikipedia article I've ever read. I am a professional, practicing Recreation Hypnotist. My business license actually states "Recreational Hypnosis - Non Medical and Non Therapeutic". Recreational Hypnosis has nothing to do with erotic hypnosis nor with any fetish. To equate them here, on such a public forum diminishes my profession. This entire article needs to be deleted and started over with no references to sex. To say the terms "recreational hypnosis" and "erotic hypnosis" are synonyms is just appalling. I will continue to delete major portions of this article to protect my profession.

Hypnosis used to treat anything which can be medically diagnosed, like sexual dysfunction, immediately becomes hypnotherapy. Wesley Pimentel (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

When adding new discussions to talk pages, please post at the bottom where new discussions are supposed to be added. There is a possibility it will be missed by other editors when added with the older discussions. Now for your comments, I have no knowledge of the subject so I'm not going to say the content is right or wrong, but you're going about this the wrong way. Threatening to edit war if content you disagree with is re-added is not going to help your case, it's more likely to result in getting you blocked than anything else. If you disagree with content, discuss first and see if you can convince other editors by getting a consensus to remove the text. We don't delete first, discuss later. Cmr08 (talk) 07:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

To present the flip side, I'm a practising BDSMer and I can assure you that erotic hypnosis is indeed practised in that context and roughly conforms to what the article presents. Yes, those portions of the article come across like they were written by a fan-boy, and could use a bit of help on that front, but substantively, they're not wrong. Now, if you want to split the article into two, I'm willing to entertain that idea, but to quote the very first sentence of the article, even after your changes, "Recreational hypnosis is the practice of hypnosis for the enjoyment of the subject or client." I think it can fairly be said that erotic hypnosis is enjoyable to the subject, so my initial instinct would be to oppose a split. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 17:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As evidence that erotic hypnosis is frequently deemed to be part of the broader term "recreational hypnosis", this is the description of The Recreational Hypnosis Community—the top Google result, excluding Wikipedia itself, when searching "recreational hypnosis":

hypnotising.org is the website for those into hypnosis from a recreational view point, hypnosis, mesmerism for stage, recreationally, and sexually. Str8 and gay hypnotists and subjects are welcome

Not only is sexual hypnosis included in their description, they also say "straight and gay...are welcome". Why bother mentioning sexual orientation unless there was a certain expectation of sexual content? That actually lends a certain degree of credence to the idea that they're often considered one and the same, though personally, I think that's making a bit of a leap. At least in my experience, recreational hypnosis includes stage hypnosis, hypnosis just because you enjoy being a hypnotist or subject, as well as the erotic/hypnophilic aspect. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Recreational hypnosis and erotic hypnosis are not synonyms. That's like saying a recreational vehicle is a sexual vehicle. Just because someone uses something for sexual pleasure, it does not convert that thing into a sexual thing, nor does it make that thing's recreational use the same as sexual use. There is no ambiguity nor abstraction here. It is simple. Recreational hypnosis does not equal erotic hypnosis. End of story.

I don't entirely disagree with that statement; they're not equal in my mind either. Recreational hypnosis is a broader category than erotic hypnosis. That said, if you Google "recreational hypnosis", more than half of the first few pages of results are about erotic hypnosis, so I don't think it's appropriate to completely separate the concepts, either. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 03:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Move

Despite the apparent content fork, I'm content to leave the move unchallenged for the simple reason that Wesley Pimentel is correct in his statement that this article almost exclusively focuses on erotic hypnosis which is not, strictly speaking, a synonym for recreational hypnosis. I've made changes to the lead to note the differences and removed the small bit of remaining material that had nothing to do with erotic hypnosis. A better solution would have been to expand the recreational hypnosis article to include other forms of hypnosis, but perhaps with the stage hypnosis article already in place, that wouldn't have been viable. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 16:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Faffy.

Contrary to widespread belief, Faffy is not just the name of a duck. Many pieces of writing might be called "Faffy". This Wiki on Erptic Hypnosis is one. Its like waffly, vague, contains numerous contradictions and looks like it was written by several people simultaneously wearing blindfolds. I added a specific item about BDSM. Then considered re-phrasing the intro. But decided to be sensible, I would re-write the whole thing. I wont do that as a newbie here. But if asked I would offer an attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankunft (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 July 2015‎

Your best bet is to create a sandbox with a suggested re-write (e.g., User:Ankunft/Erotic hypnosis). Once you're done, post back to the page so anyone can go look at it and then figure out where to go from there. Also, on "talk" pages, you should sign anything you post with four tildes (~~~~). – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"Hypnosis Without Trance"

I have spent considerable time in the recreational hypnosis community and I've never seen this term used to describe NLP or conditioning. It is typically only used to describe "waking hypnosis" and I believe that the term "hypnosis without trance" was popularized by someone making paid hypnosis tutorial videos and demonstrations named James Tripp (who does not use the term to describe NLP or Conditioning either, although he claims he incorporates NLP into his technique). I removed the relevant line from the article, I hope that's okay 69.41.6.191 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"…needs attention from an expert on the subject"

Seriously? It's not like colleges give degrees in erotic hypnosis. Unfortunately. 184.53.48.204 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Further reading

I have removed a number of very niche or not directly relevant books from Further Reading. The two that remain are self published, but they are substantial (over 200 pages) and have at least some reviews on Amazon.com and at least a 4.0 average rating. BrightVamp (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Independent coverage of erotic hypnosis

Erotic hypnosis has significant coverage in Psychology Today, Cosmopolitan,, Mel Magazine, Vice magazine, Dazed, narratively, and kinkly.. Coverage has appeared on podcasts such as the Savage Lovecast and Sex Nerd Sandra on the Nerdist podcast network.

There is coverage in the psychiatric literature going back as far as 1957 of eroticization of hypnosis.

Placing here as a temporary resource. These sources will be used to fill in the article with independently supported information. BrightVamp (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. These are pretty much all media sources (see WP:MEDPOP) and that last journal sounds sketchy. Not totally convinced this passes WP:GNG. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Erotic hypnosis refers to an alternative sexuality/BDSM practice, rather than a medical concept. There's a separate question of whether erotic fascination with hypnosis qualifies as a paraphilia, which it may not be if it hasn't been so labelled by a medical authority, but these sources establish that it is a kink.

The Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis (renamed in 1959 the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis) is listed on the American Psychological Association's website as one of the major hypnosis journals and typically appears in the first or second quartile of clinical psychology journals by h-index. BrightVamp (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

____

References

Major edit based on independent sources

In the past five years there has been increasing coverage of erotic hypnosis by independent media sources, as I refer to above, so I have used them as the basis for a major edit with claims about how it is practiced backed up with citations. I have removed some claims I could not find support for. My intention is for this to be a first step of moving this article in the direction of such fleshed out, informative articles about niche sexual subcultures as Robot fetishism and Omorashi. BrightVamp (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Choice of references in the lead section

On July 28, Mesmer7 replaced the references in the lead section, which included an independently published book, a scientific article, and an online magazine article, with references to two personal blog posts published on hypnoticdreams.com. Since then 69.14.154.236 has three times reverted back to that version. Although I don't think the justification provided ("This page has referenced the article on hypnoticdreams.com since 2007. It was one of the earliest articles on the subject ever published") is a strong enough reason for an exception to the rule against user generated content, WP:UGC, let's discuss it, 69.14.154.236, and maybe we can find some additional WP:RS references for the points you feel strongly about including in the lead. BrightVamp (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Back in 2007, I wrote one of the first versions of this wikipedia entry. When a troll [repeatedly] gutted it, I moved the text to my web site, and added a reference to it here. That reference stood from 2007 until 2020, when vice.com replaced it with citations to their very poorly written articles. HypnoticDreams.com is one of the longest standing web sites dedicated solely to erotic hypnosis (more than 22 years). This article is one of the earliest on the subject, and probably the oldest one still available on the web. Mesmer7 (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mesmer7, regardless of the value of the information it provides, and its age, I'm afraid as a personal blog (and shop) hypnoticdreams.com doesn't meet the Wikipedia standard for a reliable source. The citations this edit replaces in the lead are to an independently published book, magazine article, and scientific article. Unless you have another argument for why Wikipedia policy shouldn't apply in this case (I can see possibly making an argument if there were literally no independently published articles, but there are plenty) the previous citations should stand. As the creator of hypnoticdreams.com, please also take a look at WP:COI and the cautions against citing your own self-published material, particularly if it could drive traffic to a retail website. BrightVamp (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Mesmer7, I have left you a message on your Talk page regarding compliance with Wikipedia's WP:COI guidelines. While your comments about the content of this article are welcome here on the Talk page, the best practice for you is not to edit the article directly, but instead to use the {{Edit request}} template here on the Talk page when you see something in the article that needs changing to start a discussion about your issue, and allow another editor make the actual change to the article if there is consensus in favor of your requested change. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've also added {{connected contributor}} to the Talk header for transparency. Mathglot (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC about references in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was procedural close per WP:RFCBEFORE. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Are the references in this edit a better choice for the lead than the previous set of references? [1] BrightVamp (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Procedural close (Summoned by bot) – you haven't talked this out yet; this Rfc is premature. See discussion. Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

First, it's not clear that WP:RFCBEFORE is satisfied and this RFC may be premature. The discussion above with only three messages and two editors is hardly an intractable discussion that has hit a wall after endless discussion among many editors and is beyond any resolution without an Rfc. The previous discussion #Choice of references in the lead section should be continued before you start an Rfc. You may withdraw this Rfc if you wish by simply removing the {{rfc}} template below the section header.

Secondly, if and when you start one, can you please be explicit, and list in the Rfc the "before" and "after" references, so we know what we are voting for? Also, references are not required in the lead, so you should include a third option of "just have the references in the body", which is a very common case. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2022 (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.

Separating erotic hypnosis from mind control fetishism?

Don't feel strongly enough on the topic to submit a split request, but I feel it would be better if the two topics were separated. Anyone else have any thoughts? Eldomtom2 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)