Talk:Frotteurism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why warnings from nudity in external links?

I see two of the external links have warnings that 'While mostly informational this site does contain some pictures of nudity'. Is this necessary, given the (to me, acceptable) omission of any such warning for the internal link to tribadism? --Townmouse 23:16, 2 November 2004 (UTC)

Frot vs. frotteurism

I came on this article purely by accident, and was about to nominate it for deletion as unencyclopedic...but I found a sufficient number of non-mirror google hits to keep me from doing so... I added a link for a male-male frotteurism site, but I'm wondering about the classification of this "activity" as a "disorder". Could someone please clarify why this is classified as a disorder but anal sex is not? Tomer^talk 07:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Frot and frotteurism are NOT the same thing. Confusingly, both are sometimes called frottage from the French word for "rubbing". Psychologically, frotteurism gets classified as a paraphilia, understood as a disorder. By contrast frot is normal and is simply another word for male-male genital sex, which is part of sexual variation. In the case of frot, the term frottage has been abandoned, so as to avoid confusion with the paraphilia. Frot is the preferred term for male-male genital sex. I moved the link to the Heroic Homosex site to Frot. - Haldrik 14 December 2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haldrik (talk • contribs) 08:05, 14 December 2005

Yeah, I see that. Thanks, and thanks for the clarification. Tomer^talk 08:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So does anyone really think the frot and frotteurism (but oddly enough not tribadism) articles should be merged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.81.7 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2006

I've put up a reccommendation for a tribadism merger as well just to be thourough, though I personally think they should all be independant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.81.26 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 31 January 2006

I don't know why this has been considered for a merge? Frot is a completely separate and self-contained from whatever frotteurism is. It's a normal way for two men to have sex, and deserves its own entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.15.83 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 February 2006

I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that there should be no merger here, I 'm going to remover the tags —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.81.26 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 February 2006

cite sources

This information seems very nice and probably accurate. Never the less, we do need to cite sources, even if the topic of this article is obviously valid and notable. This article is in no way threatened with deletion, I think, so I'm not really threatening it with that if sources aren't cited. So just leave the tag on until someone cites a source. Lotusduck 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it included in Frottage?

I was under the impression that Frottage covered more than just rubbing against other people. I seem to recall it cover sexual gratification from contact through materials (i.e. silk, rubber whatever), not neccesarily just discreet rubbing. User:Alex 14:32, 6 June 2003

Frottage can certainly be more than just discreet rubbing. At least as a practice amongst gay men (and, presumably, other groups) it tends to be taken to mean stimulation (often to orgasm) from rubbing against one another, generally whilst naked. I wouldn't suggest that it's merely brushing past someone on the tube. — OwenBlacker 13:47, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

THE WORD FROTTEURISM HAS NO MEANING EXCEPT A PSYCHIATRIC TERM FOR A SEXUAL DISORDER. PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE IT WITH FROTTAGE WHICH CAN REFER TO NORMAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY. Haldrik 09:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Marmaduke

I've removed the following sentence: "In the popular comic strip 'Marmaduke', there have been many references that allude to the fact that Marmaduke is a frotteur." The idea of Marmaduke as a frotteur comes from Joe Mathlete's satirical blog "Marmaduke Explained", which lampoons the cartoon with irreverent and sarcastic explanations of what goes on in the cartoon panels. Marmaduke is, in my opinion, one of the most unfunny cartoons ever made and personally I find Mathlete's "explanations" to be infinitely more amusing than the cartoon itself, but it's still misleading to include the Marmaduke/frotteurism connection in this article. Jonas Liljeström 13:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged with groping

I've merged in the stuff from the groping page which I've replaced with a redirect. This was basically the Japanese material. The groping page had already been tagged as not having a world view, which isn't too srprising as it was about frotteurism in Japan.--Simon Speed 10:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Chikan (body contact) proposed

I am proposing merger of Chikan (body contact). Some reasons:

• Wikipedia is not Wiktionary: We don't need an entry for every foreign language term on the same topic
• Overlap: Although the Japanese term is more vaguely defined, it's referring to pretty much the same thing
• Reasonable size of articles for merging: If you remove the overlap from the chikan article, there isn't much to say about Frotteurism in Japan besides a couple of high profile cases and the women-only trains. And the women-only train phenomenon has already been documented in this article and the Women-only passenger car article.

Most other language versions of Wikipedia don't have separate articles for these two. If there is no disagreement after waiting for comments, I will go ahead with the merge.
—Tokek 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I've already merged in groping, but please try not to lose any interesting material. --Simon Speed 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge-me-do. ShizuokaSensei 17:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Y Done. I also "merged" (as in "redirected") Chijo into the article, since it has no hope of ever becoming a proper article in its own right (and if that should unexpectedly change, it could be split off at any later point). I dorfbaer I talk I 17:01, January 2, 2008

DSM category

Under the DSM frotteurism is listed as a "Sexual and gender identity disorder". This category combines both "sexual disorders" and "gender identity disorders". It is listed under the category "Paraphilias". Frotteurism is not necessarily a disorder. It depends on whether it causes significant distress or impairment. --CloudSurfer 11:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Disorder in such context is certainly biased, and I personally fail to see how it can even be considered to be one.--Orthologist 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. According to DSM-IV-TR Frotteuristic behavior is always a disorder. It specifically does NOT depend on whether it causes significant distress, and is always considered a role impairment. This is made explicitly clear in several places (see p. 570 and p. 840).Gogh (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

POV-section

Because passages like "Even so, the criminal courts have traditionally been lenient in cases of groping and have only recently made efforts to combat the social problem with tougher sentences." are unambiguously subjective. You cannot just claim that something is a 'social problem' in an article. You find someone who has published that opinion in a notable source, and you quote them. This whole article is peppered with passages like this. Frotteur are slut!Special:Contributions/219.79.234.46 (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can Chikan and Chijo be re-declared as general Asian terms?

Just like overly crowded public transit systems is an Asian phenomenon in general and not just Japanese, so is frotteurism. Just as random examples (of "casual" frotteurism in a crowded subway), the South Korean film Sex Is Zero (2002) features this, and the Chinese film Pirated Copy (2004) even features a Chijo (assuming your answer to this question is positive). So is there a consensus to change the article to reflect that? Obviously it would still be mentioned that these words originated in Japan. -62.219.107.171 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus was already reached to merge the articles, so no. The "chijo" article was not encyclopedic and I don't see how it could have been expanded. It's a slang term for a female pervert. Was the word "chikan" used explicitly in an English subtitle of these films, and were they being used only because the English word "frotteurism" is not as widely recognized? Frotteurism outside of asia would still be called "chikan" in Japanese because they mean the same thing. However, suppose temporarily the word "chikan" didn't even exist. Then do you see any necessity for a "Frotteurism in Asia" sub-article in the first place? I think this is really about two questions: 1, do we need a sub-article for frotteurism, and 2, should that article be titled "Chikan" (despite the fact that Japanese is not a common language spoken by all Asians). So far, I don't see how the examples that you provided can make an argument for overriding the consensus that was established previously. —Tokek (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Is that what this proposal is really about? The anonymous IP was suggesting that we "change this article"—not create a sub-article. If I understand correctly, I think they were merely criticising the Japan-centric slant of the existing article, which makes it appear as if frotteurism is solely a Japanese phenomenon among Asian countries. In fact, there is little discussion of frotteurism outside of Japan except for a brief mention of its classification and description by American psychologists. As it stands, the article misrepresents the issue by giving undue weight to its prevalence in Japan. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oops, you're right. Looks like I misinterpreted the IP. S/he didn't mention a sub-article creation proposal. I agree that "As it stands, the article misrepresents the issue by giving undue weight to its prevalence in Japan." Also, I looked into the word usage in Korea and China a little bit. In China, it's called "chihan" (痴汉) and in Korea, it's also called "chihan" (치한). Now I don't know enough about these languages to give the full context of these usages, but it's unsurprising given the fact that terms are frequently shared within the Sinosphere of countries. A reasonable degree of linguistic note could be added, while a more detailed note could go somewhere inside Wiktionary instead. Maybe the "re-declaring" was referring to an edit conflict where someone else "un-declared" it, I don't know. —Tokek (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose the re-declaring was a bit of sarcasm, remarking on Wiki having seemingly decided this is a strictly Japanese phenomenon, requiring reassertion that yes, indeed, Japan is not the only country with perverts (!) I agree with making a note about the word usage in Korea and China. I would also like to see sections on its occurrence in these countries, the punishment for it, and its impact on 'popular culture'. It would also be good to expand sections on the psychological background of it; perhaps statements could be found describing what determines its prevalence, etc. It's something of a gargantuan task and I'm not yet ready to begin on research right now, but if you are interested (and it is an interesting topic!) we could perhaps work together and slowly remove the implicit japanese-men-are-perverts bias. Wouldn't it be amusing to see this on the front page as an FA? Would be a nice change from all those dull history topics, yawn! clicketyclick_yaketyyak 04:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to keep interpreting about any edit war or sarcasm. You can't argue with the fact that right now the article declares these things as a Japanese phenomenon. The aforementioned film examples demonstrate how non Japanese yet still Asian films casually feature the phenomenon as an Asian one despite what is currently written in this article. -62.219.97.118 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Normal?

The Other uses line referred to "normal" sexual activity. Whatever that is. Since the article seems from the beginning to determine paraphilia in part by lack of consent, shouldn't the contrast be to 'consensual' or maybe 'mutual'? I'm way out of my normal orbit in the Wiki universe, so maybe my reaction should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, I changed it. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Delusional

From what I remember reading there is also commonly a delusional element to this disorder, whereby the frotteur admits after the incident that he (typically) believes a mutual bond of admiration exists between the victim and himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.15.33 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2005

That may be true. For instance, Let's say that a woman and a man both are dating each other and well...he touches or

rubs her on her boobs when their both in a designated area. Would that still be frottage, if she actually wanted it? I'm just saying from my perspective in sexology. that it may not all ways be a criminal offense.--SpaceGirl09 (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Groping???

• "Groping" seems like a rather kind term to me; kind of like "Comfort Women".

  "Sexual Assault: Any form of sexual contact without voluntary consent" (Adapted from the Criminal Code of Canada, Sec.270). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.213.222.9 (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. Wikipedia is full of such "kind terms." For example, the Wiki article about Thomas Jefferson says he had a "relationship" with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. Using the term "relationship" makes it sound as though it were somehow consensual. In reality, there is by definition no such thing as "consensual" sex between a slave owner and a slave. Really, "rape" is the only possible word that one can use in this context.
• Frotteurism seems from the definition here to be rubbing with the genitalia or nearby parts; I thought that groping is usually with a hand. I suspect that these topics need to be un-merged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, after going through dictionaries. Groping is generally by hand, groping the buttocks or breasts. Related term fondle currently redirects to physical intimacy. Also, groping can be either with or without consent. I will try improving lead section of both with references first. C.columbus (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Keep Frotteurism at Frotteurism and Groping at Groping. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Frotteurism → Groping — — More common name, 3M google hits vs 43k. Also appears case of censoring, avoiding common name. This would require a history merge. — C.columbus (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Frotteurism seems to be rubbing with the genitalia or nearby parts; I thought that groping is usually with a hand. I suspect that these topics need to be un-merged. This query is being discussed at Talk:Frotteurism#Groping???. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• And isn't frotteur also a posh name for a fluffer? – ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Frotteurism is rubbing; groping is grabbing. They're not the same. Also, slang's repurposing of some word or another doesn't change its original meaning. CRESCENT1 HALF2 GIBBOUS3 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Unmerging as suggested would be appropriate. C.columbus (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Dogs

I have added that dogs also frequently commit frotteurism, such as humping people's legs, although this is not a criminal offense. In order to follow Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV, it is important that articles are not speciesist and represent other animals besides just humans. Frotteurism is a sin!--Emperor Palpating (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Page

WTF?! Bad display of page in G Chrome all browsers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.34.26 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Solved! Page error was from long image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.34.26 (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Refrain from sexual aspects

One wonders how far we want to go into the sexual aspects of this - it's considered sexual assault and has been prosecuted, though I can't come up with any dates or places right now. Then there's the term "zipless fuck" and the scene in No Way Out with Kevin Costner and Sean Young in the back seat of a taxi cab. - Zoe 03:15, 2 June 2003

A "fipless zuck" may be a crime - but life isnt lived on the books necessarily - And what constitutes "rape" - can deteriorate into a very useless definition - without penetration, no rape has occured, as I understand it... (in typical male fashion). And 'frottage' tends to mean (as I understand it) a way of embellishing in the mind - normal jostling on a train into something intimate. Its most likely a one-way thing... one party considers you (the hypothetical frottageer) as virtually nonexistent or at most, a pest.

On the rare occasions I've made some sort of "meaningful contact" on a train or a bus - its highly localized to the context - it cant be recreated on the street or something. It's meaningless - talking with someone is a different route altogether.

The idea that something exists is enough to make it a social phenomenon - an urban legend, if you will. It makes a whole bunch of sense, when you consider how many in our culture live isolated - often frenetic lives. The idea that a cheap five minute "date" can be had on the way back home from work - is no doubt appealing to a MacDonalds-ized culture. God I hope MacDonalds-ized is not a real word.

I dunno. .) --豎眩sv 03:50, 2 June 2003

Not necessarily sexual assault It is NOT correct to say groping is legally sexual assault as suggested above. It is in many countries but not in all. Apault (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)apault

New, recent anti-Chikan events in Japan

Refer to the following sources:

• Mark Willacy, September 17, 2009, Tokyo police launch anti-groping week, Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• Mark Willacy, September 17, 2009, 'Groping' out of control on Tokyo trains - AM, Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Apparently there are large-scale PR campaigns and cracking down on Chikan in Tokyo. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Should the Japan section be in here at all? There is another section for 'Eve Teasing' the Indian colloquialism for groping/chikan. Including Eve Teasing or moving the Japanese example would be more consistent. Also it does treat Japan rather unfairly: it is far from being the only country with this issue. Apault (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC) apault

Is this vandalism?

It's vandalism, right? Tell me this is vandalism. I has to be.

The most famous Frotteur is a man named Bumpy. He got into frotteurism after many publicized incidents, including: Pig masturbation, being hit by a flying dildo, fighting naked babies, male prostitution via advertisements on Craigslist, stuffing exotic fish down his pants, living like an adult baby and sucking the toes of the elderly. When his previous fetishes no longer satisfied him, he began to practice frotteurism, which started at family functions.

Again...please tell me this is vandalism. Even if it's not true, tell me it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.187.112 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

Regarding the following speculative claim in the lead section which cites a broken link...

 Adult on child frotteurism can be an early stage in child sexual abuse.

While the claim may well be true, I strongly feel that it unduly skews the article by implying an association which, even if substantiated, is probably a negligible proportion of overall frotteurism cases. The sensitive issue of child sexual abuse is already highly emotive in the community at large, therefore the greatest care must be taken to ensure Wikipedia only supplies reliable information in relation to it. Unless anyone can promptly provide a link to some credible source for this assertion, I firmly believe it should be removed. Even if appropriate references can be supplied for it, I further suggest this particular claim should be relocated to a suitable article dealing with child sexual abuse with a backlink, rather than remaining within this article. Peter B. (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it.— James Cantor (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Another (important?) version: skitching

Should "skitching" be mentioned here? This is the act of rubbing up against fur when both (or all) parties are clothed in animal costumes. There is apparently a small but growing community of people who enjoy and practice this at conventions and other gatherings.

I've been surprised to hear the term many times: On episode of CSI (original, 3rd season I think) featured this. Also in chat rooms where some members have selected an avatar or describe themselves as an animal, other people have typed that they were "skitching" that person.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.13.172.18 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 August 2005

That CSI episode was filled with inaccuracies and exaggerations, it should't be used as source for anything other than CSI trivia. --TiagoTiago (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Does it only apply to non-consensual rubbing?

What if for example the other person flirts and invites the frotteur closer and they both rub on each other intentionally? With consent does froteurism becomes plain making out or is it still froteurism, or perhaps sumthing else? --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, i missed the part that says "frottage" is consensual frotteurism, but...

The article about frottage doesn't seem to describe clothed rubbing in public places like on trains and stuff... --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems author of this page assumed what there can't be consent if such situation happens between strangers in public place, which isn't true. If other person can easily change their position to distance themselves from frotteur and avoid undesirable contact without any consequences to them, but don't do that then it should imply consent. It become non-consensual if frotteur don't stop when other person trying to avoid contact or protest verbally. And it would be obviously consensual if other person instead of distancing themselves, on contrary, become closer and reciprocate frotteur actions. From this page it isn't obvious if frotteurism is considered as one based on fact what you rub your body with strangers or only if it was against person's consent.46.236.159.134 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

From the recipient's point of view

This is really creepy: you're usually standing in a crowded public place, and a stranger bumps into you, back to back or thereabouts. If you turn your head to look, he may offer a flirtatious smile. Naturally you look back away and ignore him. Then he simultaneously rubs shoulders and hips with you, back to back again. You aren't even paying attention anymore, but somehow your body almost starts to yield to this unwanted affection, and all of a sudden you get this really weird, vaguely sexual, electric, creepy-crawley feeling running up and down your spine. By the time you realize what is happening, the frotteur has lost himself in the crowd, gotten off the bus, etc. Leaves you with the chills. 174.25.65.190 (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, wait, he stays with his back towards you the whole time? Are you sure he is even aware he is doing anything more than just standing there? Perhaps the smile is to apologize for bumping you and then he just looks out of the window and starts counting telephone poles or whatever... --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If it makes you uncomfortable then you can change your position, distance yourself, etc. If they are "chasing" you then it could be considered as harassment. If you can do that, but instead stay and do nothing, to the point of "feeling your body starts to yield", then it implies you consented to his actions. 46.236.159.134 (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)