Talk:Chubby culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Hmmmm ... I think some discussion about what a "chaser" is is warrented here ... --CMF 21:43, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

And considering that the organizations use the term "chub" rather than "chubby" in their names, why does this article use "chubby"? --Wbkelley 04:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because a chub is a fish. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The term 'chubby chaser' does not neccessarily refer to gay culture AFAIK. Often it involves men and 'chubby' women. --Andy 09:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 How about a non-nude photo? 2 Chubby Fellow in Photo 3 The Bear stuff... 4 Neither This Term Nor This Concept is Unique to the Gay Community 5 Revisions

[edit] How about a non-nude photo?

Why does the photo for this entry need to be nude?

It doesn't need to be, it just happens to be. It isn't obscene (the private parts aren't even visible), and it seems in keeping with the spirit of chubby culture for a fat man not to be ashamed to show his body. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, do not think Pornography should be on Wikipedia, and am going to remove it. Chooserr 08:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not pornography, and removing it is vandalism. --Angr (t·c) 08:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Nudity in and of itself is not pornography. I may be biased here, as I find this particular man quite cute, but there is no sexual activity depicted. I think those who object are most likely objecting to 1) the visibility of a grown man's genitals; and 2) the fact that the man is chubby. --BHnTX

How about something more tasteful? TotalTommyTerror 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• What's not tasteful about it? --thickslab 16:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"12:25, 20 March 2006 Angr (removing link to deleted image)" This image does exist, however I guess from looking at it that it has to be a different image from before? Mathmo 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the image called "Sunglass-c.jpg" used to be different image from this one. Angr (t • c) 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, what absurd article. I'd love to see a picture. Haizum 07:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chubby Fellow in Photo

Is the gentleman to the right really considered chubby in gay culture? In straight culture he'd be a rather fit early adult. 88.155.171.247 19:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, he isn't. When the picture was being used in this article, it was a different image. —Angr 21:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bear stuff...

Can the bear community references (in terminology and links) be kept to a minimum? The bear community [1] entry is more appropiate for those, and although there is overlap between the two communities, posting more bear stuff may simply make this entry a 2nd rated copy of the Bear one. My vote is to remove the "bear", and "cub" terms from the terminology as those are clearly from the Bear community. Also, there are a gazillion bear sites compared to a small list of traditional Chubby/Chaser sites. I think the links portion should reflect this also (ie, sites labeled "bear this or that" with no references to chubby/chasers should not be listed). Any thoughts? THX! -george

I agree. --Angr (tɔk) 13:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having looked once more at the links, I think they're okay. AFAICT all of them are relevant to chubby culture, and including the terms "bear" and "cub" in the terminology section is not unreasonable. --Angr (tɔk) 13:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree the term "bear" is not unreasonable, since this term has been widely accepted by the Chubby/Chaser community. But (IMHO) I don't see the relevance of "cub" and the other many variations that may follow (otter, panda, polar, manatee, whatever) :) Hopefully those will be kept out, with a clear link to the Bear community entry. As far as the links they're all good except for the bear magazine link which seems to be another traditional bear site. I'm glad there is agreement of sorts... I've just seen many chub/chaser sites swallowed by the tsunami of bear sites and too many newcomers getting confused with the overlap. :( I think keeping things clear and simple will be benefitial. -george (ps: love the photo)

I think cub is okay here, if only to make it clear that cub and chub are different terms and not typos for each other. The other terms (otter etc.) don't belong here, and aren't here. And I looked through the Bear Magazine site, and it does have some stuff for chubs and chasers too. I agree this article should not be merged with (or submerged by, to use your tsunami metaphor) the article on bears, but at the moment I think the distinction is clear. (Thanks!) --Angr (tɔk) 14:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neither This Term Nor This Concept is Unique to the Gay Community

While I *was* surprised to see how robust the Chubby/Chub/et al subculture is in the gay community, I believe this entry suffers from excluding the straight iterations of the idea/concept/term.

In a brief Internet search, I found a very visible pop culture recognition of the "chubby chaser" in an episode of CSI as a male:female phenomenon (i.e. "straight").

I, personally, consider myself a chubby chaser, and am not at all homosexual.

Would you (Angr) be willing to incorporate the straight usage of the term and respective community, or would you like some assistance with such an inclusion?

I'd rather this article remain about the gay subculture. The straight subculture is covered in the articles Fat admirer and Big Beautiful Woman. But we could certainly add a hatnote saying something like "This article is about chubby culture as part of gay culture. For the corresponding straight community, see Fat admirer." User:Angr 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea - not sure how one goes about adding that tagnote, though. NickBurns 06:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions

I made a few revisions yesterday. One was to put the terminology first, and my logic there was that it would be beneficial for others reading the article to know the terms (since some of this would be very foreign to those not knowledgeable about the scene).

However, I see it was revised back....and that's cool, since I don't think that particular part of my revision worked for the article. NickBurns 09:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraph should provide at least a basic summary of what the article is about. I reverted because I didn't have time to work on writing a new intro, but having the lead section (read WP:LEAD) say nothing but "The chubby community is a subculture in the gay community" really isn't providing enough information. At the very least it should say something like "The chubby community is a subculture in the gay community made up of overweight men (often called chubbies or chubs) and men who are attracted to overweight men (often called chubby chasers)." At least then the reader doesn't have to read any further to know what's being talked about. User:Angr 09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)