Talk:Transformation fetish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Body Modification"

What's meant by "body modification"? It seems to cover quite a bit. Besides everything other category on the page, it include penis enlargement, breast enlargement, muscle growth, growth, shrinking, and "multilimb" at least. Each of these may have little representation at the animal-centric sites linked, but they have their own communities. I'd remove body modification and add these all as types, but that would make quite a few and I wonder whether that would make a good article. Comments, anyone? LizardWizard 05:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think it means the person likes like extra of something or less of something. Like the person is arroused to someone with 4 arms and 4 legs maybe, and another is aroused to someone with 1 arm and 1 leg, since the body was modified. I could be wrong though.

[edit] Perversion Factor

A good majority of Wikipedia users would find this article gross and a bit disturbing. Is it realy that important that Wikipedia have articles about sick fetishes like this?

We don't censor information just because it's "gross," "disturbing," or "sick." <sup>L</sup><sub>W</sub><font size="3">izard</font> [[User_talk:LizardWizard|@]] 21:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We could write it to encyclopedic standards, however. Lotusduck 01:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What I find disturbing are the simple minds that view fictional material as "disturbing." Especially when the fictional factor does not include death and destruction.Obbop 14:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General sub-themes?

I notice the recuring use of the word victim throughout this article, and other words of a similar theme. While it does seem that this fetish may frequently have ties to pain as a sexual stimulus, shouldn't the article remain more nuetral, as the connection is not absolute? If this fetish is somehow a composite of various other desires I think both the connections and the distinctions should be made more clear.

"Victim" is used here in its actual meaning; those who are transformed against their will are victims of transformation, as opposed to willing participants. While I agree that there is a sexual side to this fetish - note that it is described in the terms of a sexual fetish throughout the article - I don't think that "pain as a sexual stimulus" is applicable here. It's not the pain that defines the fetish - see masochism - it's the transformation aspect in itself. CNash 23:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cite sources

Sources must be cited for this article. The next time someone edits this article without adding sources, I will nominate it for deletion- fair eh? Lotusduck 01:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather absurd criterion to nominate it for deletion (at the next edit, that is). If you want to nominate the article for deletion you can, but I ask that you please don't base when you nominate it on article edits, because that just discourages people from editing the article. LWizard @ 03:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

It's allowing people the opportunity to add sources on an unlimited time scale. Lotusduck 04:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Fetish Sites

An interest in transformations does not equal a fetish. A large majority of the transformation community have no sexual interest in it - but some members are more vocal about it than others. Please DO NOT link to sites that have nothing to do with the fetish aspects of this. I have removed transfur.com because we have gone to GREAT LENGTHS to avoid the fetish stygma that people have unfairly forced on the community. Do not link to it again, it has NOTHING to do with this topic. (Unsigned by User:2006 205.250.104.239 on 04:20, 17 February)

I would note that the two artists on the site with the most images designated by a user as a 'favorite' (a good measure of popularity, given that the two artists have in excess of 6,000 of these 'favorites' logged) have explicit sexual themes appearing regularly in the work which they post. Though some members of the site and even some administrators may be disgusted at the idea that their site is used as a respository for 'fetish material.' The transformation community does not seem alone in this tension between sexual and non-sexual enthusiasts, primarily initiated from the non-sexual part of the community. (See Furvert) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.204.25 (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Transfur has a lot to do with the topic, and is a notable website, unlike the personal websites I just removed. An interest in transformations does not equal a fetish, but a fetish is a subset of an interest in transformations, and you'll find a lot of it on Transfur. Who is the "we", and which community are you going to great lengths to sanitize? I don't think you actually represent them, or have their approval or interests in mind. --Coyoty 15:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Do not list the site. DO NOT DRAG US INTO YOUR GUTTER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.104.239 (talk • contribs)

I've been asked to join in on this debate, hopefully as a relatively neutral but knowledgeable outside view. It seems to me that Transfur has both fetish and non-fetish content, and that the line between the two is subjective in any event. But still, since Transfur isn't exclusively a fetish site, it's not really an ideal external link to have here. It might fit in better on a general transformation fantasy or transformation fandom page, were one to be created. This could be an opportunity to cover the whole genre in a more organized manner. Bryan 06:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
There's coverage on that at shapeshifting. --Kizor 10:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's a subtopic of that. It could do with an article of its own. That section would make a good seed for an expanded article, though. Bryan 21:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've created an article by splitting off part of shapeshifting. This should hopefully allow any remaining disputes to be resolved simply by redistributing fetish and non-fetish material between the two articles accordingly, though bearing in mind that there's going to inevitably be some overlap. Bryan 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vampires

surely Dracula is a classic example of this genre.

[edit] other media

would Big a whole host of anime fall into this catagory.

[edit] Phobias?

Are there any phobias associated with these transformation fetishes? 14:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Not phobias as such (aren't phobias and fetishes mutually incompatible concepts?), but a certain level of revulsion based on disposition to certain TF subject matter, such as the depiction of exposed internal organs that I've seen in the work of some Japanese artists, or Horihone Saizo's mangas, which tend to feature some very bizarre body modification, up to and including the main character's body becoming nothing more than a mass of penises. Other fetishes overlapping with TF may cause similar reactions - for example, Vore.
Going back to your question on phobias, however, a thought just struck me: if you're phobic about the creature that the subject is being transformed into (spiders and insects, for example, a common phobia), then chances are that you won't be too keen on that particular image! CNash (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kafka

I would imagine "Metamorphosis" would play a role in this fetish as it was a pretty seminal work and is exactly about transformation and the confusion that arises. Should it be added as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moth meets cloth (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)