This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

...(and in fact I originally tagged it for speedy delete). It doesn't in fact refer to a game in any formal sense; children play doctors and nurses, mothers and fathers, cowboys and indians, shopkeeper and customer, and who knows what else — they're all varieties of role-play, not distinct games deserving of encyclopædia articles. I'm inclined to go for VfD on this. Does anyone have a defence? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• None of the other games you mention involve taboo activities. Also it seems possible that "doctors and nurses" plays a role in pyscho-sexual development, rather than just social. But actually it's disappointing that we don't have Cowboys and Indians. Kappa 12:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well actually 'mothers and fathers' can do (and I don't know what a Freudian would make of cowboys and indians...). But why should sexual content make it article-worthy? Mind you, I can see a place for an article on children's role-playing games, just not for individual articles like this one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If such an article existed, this could be merged there, but deleting this would just create a gap in wikipedia's coverage when there doesn't need to be one. But take it to Vfd if you'd like. Kappa 13:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to VfD if there's a useful alternative. How about moving this to Children's games (role play), and adding a brief account of the type and the varieties? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it is totally unjustified to use the term "playing doctor" for a sexual activity. For the vast majority of children who "play doctor' or play "doctors and nurses" there is no sexual implication. This is like suggesting that all photographers of children are perverts (rather than just a tiny percentage). The article should be retitled, or the content entirely changed.Royalcourtier (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royalcourtier, we've already been over this with you in the #What?!? section below. The children are not engaging in the type of sexual activity that you seem to be thinking of. Like the article states, the term refers to "children examining each other's genitals. It originates from children using the pretend roles of doctor and patient as a pretext for such an examination. However, whether or not such role-playing is involved, the phrase is used to refer to any similar examination. Playing doctor is distinguished from child-on-child sexual abuse because the latter is an overt and deliberate action directed at sexual stimulation, including orgasm, as compared to anatomical curiosity. Playing doctor is considered by most child psychologists to be a normal step in childhood development between the ages of approximately three and six years, so long as all parties are willing participants and relatively close in age. However, it can be a source of discomfort to some parents to discover their children are engaging in such an activity." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I regard children examining each others genitals as sexual activity - as do the writers of the article. Don't presume that I am thinking of something else. The fact is that the article is referring to sexual activity, and states as much, but using a term for it which is at best ambiguous, and at worst quite misleading. And I stand by my belief that most children "playing doctors" are neither examining each others genitals nor doing anything remotely sexual.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reopening this ten-year old discussion to rehash old arguments? As multiple other editors have pointed out, Wikipedia goes by sources. Many sources have been presented supporting this usage. Opinions about what is and what is not sexual activity must come from established experts. Grayfell (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royalcourtier, what proof do you have that "the writers of the article" view playing doctor as a sexual activity as far as it concerns children? I am a "writer of the article" (there's not much of an article here), and I don't view the matter the way you do. I know how you feel on this topic because you stated how you feel in the #What?!? section below; in other words, that's not me presuming something. Children examining each other's genitals because of anatomical curiosity is not what I would call true sexual activity. Is it child sexuality? Yes, but human sexuality is a broad topic, and it does not all equate to sexual perversion. Either way, like Grayfell just stated above, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I used to "play doctor" with my friends, it meant that one of us would pretend to have a broken arm and the other would wrap it up in an improvised bandage. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Mindman1 04:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Seems as if this article was created merely to support the assertions of the author/s of other incest articles. As far as I know, 'playing doctor' has no sexual connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grarap (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is am americanism. Can someone tag it accordingly. Or delete this ridiculous article.... ORRR make a distinction between the sexual and non-sexual versions of this 'game' --80.47.36.46 (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing doctor is not a "phrase used colloquially in the western world to refer to children examining each other's genitals". That is a sexually deviant and inaccurate definition. Playing doctors for most children is an entirely innocent and non-sexual event. The definition must be changed.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is defending the peculiar sexual interpretation given to this term, so I propose to change it to a more conventional definition.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, per WP:Verifiability. And we do that with WP:Due weight. The vast majority of WP:Reliable sources define "playing doctor" in a "sexual" context (even if by "sexual," what is meant is simply examining the genitals by looking at them), so we are supposed to give significant more weight to that definition in this article, including with regard to the first sentence. And that is why I reverted you. It's a clinical matter for the children, which is what distinguishes it from child-on-child sexual abuse, which is made clear in the Playing doctor and Child-on-child sexual abuse articles. Flyer22 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the claim that the "vast majority" of sources define "playing doctor" in a "sexual" context. I suspect that it would only be a small percentage, and that nearly all modern and from North America. This article has been, to put it frankly, hijacked by perverts.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. This article appears consistent in that regard. While it's sometimes true that articles suffer from cultural bias, that would be addressed by introducing new sources, not by changing the article based on personal opinion. If you have sources, bring them forth. Regardless, please remember to be WP:Civil. Accusations like that only make it harder to develop the article in a positive manner. Grayfell (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royalcourtier (talk · contribs), you are of course more than free to Google the matter so that you can see that "vast majority" is indeed seemingly correct; whether on regular Google or on Google Books. Google Scholar does not appear to be much help on the matter, but you can try that as well. Whether the usage you dispute is mostly from North America or not, the article does currently state "a phrase used colloquially in the western world," so it's addressing that usage from the beginning. As for "hijacked by perverts," you should keep the WP:No personal attacks policy in mind. You are also wrong in that regard; editors having added the content you want changed are simply going by Wikipedia's sourcing policies and guidelines, and many editors at this site know that, per WP:CHILDPROTECT, I do what I can to keep the actual perverts from using Wikipedia to advance dubious information regarding child sexuality. You or anyone else referring to playing doctor, when used in the context of examining genitals, as perverted, shows your mindset when it comes to the topic. It's a mindset that contrasts what researchers generally state on the matter; like the article makes clear, "Playing doctor is distinguished from child-on-child sexual abuse because the latter is an overt and deliberate action directed at sexual stimulation, including orgasm, as compared to anatomical curiosity. Playing doctor is considered by most child psychologists to be a normal step in childhood development between the ages of approximately three and six years, so long as all parties are willing participants and relatively close in age. However, it can be a source of discomfort to some parents to discover their children are engaging in such an activity. Parenting professionals often advise parents to view such a discovery as an opportunity to calmly teach their children about the differences between the sexes, personal privacy, and respecting the privacy of other children."

In other words, you are seeing perversion in something where there is no perversion, unless child-on-child sexual abuse is actually involved. Notice that I put "sexual" in scare quotes above. Though I very recently called on Legitimus at a different Wikipedia article, perhaps he is interested in weighing in on this playing doctor matter. That is, if he's not annoyed with me for using WP:Echo to ping him again so soon. Like me, he has a lot of knowledge on child sexual abuse topics, and other sexual and/or psychological topics. Flyer22 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like we are debating the linguistic meaning, rather than the "clinical" meaning. In professional sources it certainly varies, in that the phrase appears in both works about children's expression of vocational interest (as stated by the original poster) and in "sexual" meaning, with the generally consensus leaning towards the latter with more recent sources. Lamb & Coakley, 1993 [1] use this term explicitly to mean, "This age-old game was one of the most frequently reported childhood sexual games by the respondents. For most subjects, pretending that one child was the doctor (or nurse) and the other child was the patient merely served as a framework in which the removal of clothes and the examination of bodies (especially the genitals) was permitted, and because of this, was coded separately from other fantasy games."

As others have said, some kind of source is needed as to what is the prevailing meaning. You categorically cannot just blurt out personal opinions and expect them to be accepted as fact.Legitimus (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what is wrong with suggesting that the term "playing doctors" does not generally have a sexual context. I may or may not be correct in this. However to say that "You or anyone else referring to playing doctor, when used in the context of examining genitals, as perverted, shows your mindset when it comes to the topic" is clearly personal abuse. I suggest that you should avoid calling editors perverted.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the #Claim section below, you implied that the current state of the article is due to perverts. Flyer22 (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I was not calling that editor a pervert with the following line: "You or anyone else referring to playing doctor, when used in the context of examining genitals, as perverted, shows your mindset when it comes to the topic." He was calling me and others a pervert! That is the reason I made that comment -- because of his ignorance, and insufficient knowledge on this topic. But nice attempt to the spin actual "You're a pervert" offender, IP. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've alrady made Doctor (game) a redirect to a new article, Children's games (role play), and I did the same for this. Another editor, Kappa, disagrees, and has reinstated it. My objections to it as a separate article are:

1. It's not encyclopædic
2. Its content is over-generalised and lacks citations (what on earth are 'parenting professionals' anyway?)
3. Nothing of worth here can't be dealt with adequately on the new page
4. Aside from Kappa's addition of a link on the new article, and a number of redirects, only one article – a list of 'traditional children's games' – links here.

I'd appreciate some thoughts on this, so that consensus can be reached on keeping it or making it a redirect. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I think basically the reason it should be separate is that it's not the same as the other roleplaying games, and is not always "roleplaying" or even a "game". Other games are about fun and pretending to be something else. This activity is about satisfying curiosity. Incidentally, I see that it's mentioned in Child sexuality. Kappa 08:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But of course it's different in some ways, but unless one thinks that sex is different in kind from other human activities, the differences aren't significant here. Besides, 'mothers and fathers' can share most if not all of its features. And if it's neither role-playing nor a game, then what qualifies it to be called 'doctor'? You seem to be using the title to refer to any sexual exploration by young children. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm kinda with Aranel on this one. That's what I and everyone else I knew did. Nothing risque. Just plastic first aid kits. As a matter of fact, I think only dirty twenty-somethings ever seem to be the ones that ever call this that. I think most proper parents would call this "horrid" and end up giving their kids a good whipping and confining them to quarters or something of the like for a very long time. I never knew a kid of the age group Kappa seems to envision to do this, and I have a feeling few kids think of this on their own. It's only been ten or so years since I was this age. I also think I've heard other terms for it (might be better?).

I certainly think it's horrid to have a children's game article link to this. Please move it. Just for propriety. Thanks.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess...though giving your kids a good whipping is completely uncalled for and useless, but whatev. —lensovet–talk – 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion Radishes 09:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, it's fine. Though it could use an explanation as to why the game is called by this name. My condolences to those who discovered that their innocent triage center and surgery roleplay games shared a common title with this one. --tjstrf talk 01:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When and where did the link was there a link established between the game and sexuality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spikeleefan (talk • contribs) 08:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"Typically in such a game, children play roles of doctor and patient, using the imaginary clinical setting as a pretext to examine one another without clothes." is a huge, extremely provocative and overly generalized claim; and if a credible citation is not given, I will remove it from the article and will also remove other related material from other paragraphs. I tagged above mentioned line in October 2007. Believe me, I hate you! (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any books on childraising on hand, but plenty of them do mention this behavior under this specific name. I know I've used the term since childhood. I'll see if I can find a better reference later. Franzeska (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term is known in the sexual sense in Scandinavian Nordic countries too. Harjasusi (talk) 13:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Harjasusi (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example. 195.35.160.133 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Martin.[reply]

This entire article is based on a falsehood. "Playing doctor" is not a euphemism for "children examining each other's genitals". Some people may use the term as a euphemism for this, but that is not the meaning of the term. "Playing doctor" means precisely what it says. This article should either be deleted or entirely re-written by someone who has neither an agenda nor sexual perversions.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, ah, yes, the sexual perversion/agenda claim again; we already covered this in the #What?!? section above. I wonder which logged-out editor you are. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about a simple role-playing game -- or else there would be no need for it. We don't need an article on children pretending to be doctors and patients any more than we need an article on children pretending to be gardener and homeowner, or tree and rock. Provocative/shocking/disgusting as one might find this topic, playing doctor is a term that refers to children examining each other's genitalia out of curiosity. Whether you've heard the term before or not, it does exist, this does occur with most children, and it's even considered normal, so kindly get over your shock and disgust and remember we're not censored. I've added several references to this effect, and you can see here for more info: http://pediatrics.about.com/od/playingdoctor/Playing_Doctor.htm. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:53, 25 Dec 2008 (UTC)

"Playing doctor" is not "a term that refers to children examining each other's genitalia out of curiosity". That is how you chose to use the term. I have heard the term used many times in the past, never with any perverted sexual undertones.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If what is meant is children's sexual activity, then another title should be used.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The meadow chapter in Laurie Lee's book Cider with Rosie (1959) might be worth citing/linking. —Sladen (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gloucestershire: A romp with Rosie". Telegraphy. 26 December 1998. Now a film has been made of the book - starring Juliet Stevenson with some narration by Lee himself - and coincidentally the scene in which a young Laurie plays doctor-and-patient with a girl called Jo Jenkins, "Close under the yews, in the heavy green evening", was shot down there by the bridge where Laurie used to picnic. "I think that was one of his favourite spots," said [John] George. Passage itself is on Page 204. —Sladen (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A work of fiction does not assist with the improvement of the article. In any case I believe that the term is not used in the book.101.98.188.150 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be at least a short explanation about children roleplaying without the intent to look at the other's genitals. I imagine that it is rather common for a child to agree to play without knowing the intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatonom (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's a different topic on a different subject, it's covered at role-playing#Amusement and in-depth at make believe. —Sladen (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC) updated[reply]

"Playing doctor is distinguished from child-on-child sexual abuse because the latter is an overt and deliberate action directed at sexual stimulation, including orgasm, as compared to anatomical curiosity." So there is either "examining each other's genitals" or "rape", no middle ground? I beg to differ. "Playing doctor" is also used as a game in order to engage in sex of any sort. "Examination" is when they haven't learned about sex and genitals yet, sure, but after that, "playing doctor" would be used to simply mean "sex" or "sexual play" of any nature. Swiftpaw (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftpaw, as noted in the #What?!? section above, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. As for your assertion that "'playing doctor' would be used to simply mean 'sex' or 'sexual play' of any nature," the article used to include the following line: "Adults also use the phrase 'playing doctor' facetiously in similar reference, to refer to adult sexual activity." But it was recently removed (followup note here). Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, me and my cousins and friends did all that when we were young, so we disagree with the assertion that "playing doctor" means either genital examination, or rape. It's an excuse to lead into sexual playing of all different sorts, and doesn't just stop at "genital examination". The "examination" is simply foreplay. Just stating facts, but I hear you about needing a source. Perhaps I should write an article about my own experiences and source that? Thanks for the comments. Swiftpaw (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftpaw, you mean write a Wikipedia article? That wouldn't pass the WP:Notability standard because of the sourcing issue. But if you mean a personal blog, okay. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Playing doctor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116190323/http://www.canadianparents.com/article/i-caught-them-playing-doctor to http://www.canadianparents.com/article/i-caught-them-playing-doctor

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]