Talk:Vorarephilia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Possible, albeit only once

Would it be too silly to add the comment "possible, albeit only once"? 85.226.122.222 07:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply : Yes it would

Did it anyway. Objections?

none.

Merge

Support:

  1. Meekohi 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This proposal met with no naysayers for two months, so I went ahead and did the merge from Soft vore with a redirect. If the subsection here grows so large to warrant its own article, it can break out at that time. Esquizombi 02:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Unbirthing is considered Vore only when it is "Female Genital Vore" and not Cock vore or "Male Genital Vore". Even so Unbirthing done for pure Sexual activity that is mutual, consentual, and erotic, without injury is usually not considered "Vore" at all.

Unbirthing

Unbirthing is simply a "reverse" birthing from outside into a vagina. This of course in a pure sense can only be into a female. It is an Adult fantasy and fetish, it can only be an adult into an adult female. It is sometimes referred to as "Female Genital Vore" -- especially when forced or it results in injury or death. Others think of it as a mutual, erotic and consentual activity with no injury to the sexual partners involved -- in that case it is not considerd a form of "Vore". "Male Genital Vore" or Cockvore, of course, can not be a form of true Unbirthing. Unbirthing comes in two forms:

1. The most common form of Unbirthing is known as "Total Unbirthing". A total adult body into an adult female would require a size difference of extremely small proportion (< 1:20) to be actual. There are various fictional stories (try an adult search). It probably has never happened -- even between very tiny midgets and real giantesses of the required size ratio. It is a popular fantasy with those who enjoy macrophylla and various back-to-the-womb fantasies.

2. The other form of Unbirthing is called "Partial Unbirthing". It is the only practical unbirthing possible and is a variety so extremely rare that only a few know about real cases. Even then it is only a "partial" unbirthing -- consisting of just the adult head into a vagina. Because less than one in a thousand women have a huge "justo major pelvis" (giant pelvis) whose boney opening would allow this, and because extreme vaginal stretching is required, it is an extremely rare sexual activity. Because of the commitment required between partners before starting to do it, and the extensive stretching practice to prepare for it, it is only a consentual, erotic, and mutually enjoyed sexual practice. Less than one couple in a million actually practice this sexual activity. This makes "partial unbirthing" or so called "adult heading" one of the most rare forms of human sexual activity.


Proposal for a merge with endosomatophilia and a complete rewrite of the combined article. Any in favor? The two are VERY closely related, and would probably be more informative to have them together. Also, would it be feasable/acceptable to use the Aryion vore wiki as sources/citing? --Animowolf 20:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking about doing that as well and would support you merging them. Please be careful in the rewrite to source any material you add. Of course a simple declaratory stub can usually get away without alot of sources but if you start to get into more descriptive assertions about the philia and it's community then sources will be a must. As for the Aryron wiki, I don't believe that is acceptable as a source. You should reviewe the reliable sources guildline for more specifics. If you want/need any help go ahead and drop me a line at my talk page. NeoFreak 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Support the merge as per above. I've placed merge tags on both articles. Robotman1974 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, think it's about time for the merger, with support and nobody saying anything against. Was thinking of giving a general overview of the subject (Vore is an umbrella term, etc etc... used to describe...) and then breaking down the many different parts to it (hard/soft, digestion, endosoma, nonconventional vore) etc in an explanation of how it's used in role-play, and so forth. Support or objection for this format?--Animowolf 04:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should be merged finally too. I was actually bout to do this, but I don't know enough about the topic to do much more than a simple cut and paste job. I support the ideas you expressed above regarding the move. Robotman1974 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The endosomatophilia page has just been eaten (by and merged with this article. Tried a different style of explaining the fetish than either of the two previous pages had attempted. Support or constructive criticism for this new format and the content contained in it?Animowolf 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge but I have removed all the unsourced conjecture, original research or assertions that are not verified by reliable sources. NeoFreak 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is, this subject has no reliable sources by publishing standards, and probably won't be any. Looks like this page is going to be a stub for a while yet. Animowolf 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cannabilism?

) is the interest/sexual fetish in which a person fantasizes about eating another person and/or creature, being eaten him/herself, and/or watching another be eaten. Preferences vary, but most prefer to fantasize about being devoured whole and alive (soft vore), as opposed to those who prefer to be torn, chewed, and killed (hard vore).

Most vorarephiles are largely uninterested in the idea of cannibalism.

So how can one fantasize about eating another person, yet be uninterested in the idea of cannibalism? Seems sorta contradictory to me ~Capi crimm

Canabalism Is the cooking and tearing apart of the "prey" while vore is eating the "prey" alive and whole, hope that clears alot of this up...

Different "scripts" for each fetish, as well as a different focus. The two are quite separate - most cannibal fetishists are largely uninterested in vore situation, whereas vore fetishists often have no interest in more generic cannibalism situation. The scripts are all highly specific, and often have quite clear differences in tone. -- Kirby1024 11:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That's what i thought, but i think some specification would be good, to explain what these differences are...-Ya'ir Hunter 21:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
From my experiences:
  • The Vore script generally sexualises the act of swallowing, rather than any other section of the scenario. Reading Vore stories, the most detailed sections are generally the section that deal with mouth-to-body contact (often there is a certain amount of licking and such before the actual swallowing act), and the actual act of swallowing the victim. In the general case, there's an emphasis on the victim being alive throughout the process, and often for some time after the act.
  • The Cannibal script, on the other hand, tends to focus much more on the preperatory aspects. Sexual cannibalism fantasies often get a great deal of mileage out of the parallel between the body and a slab of meat, often spending a great deal of time focusing on preparing the body as one would any other meat. The actual act of eating, in many sexual cannibalism fantasies, is quite secondary to the act of preparation. In cannibalism fantasies, the victim rarely survives the actual cooking process.
This is, however, mostly original research. I don't think I've seen much scholarly or even lay-research into the differences between sexual cannibalism and Vore fantasies. This should give a reasonable distinction between the two fetishes though, and I may very well attempt to find some scholarly discourse on the subject. -- Kirby1024 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

unbirth has been merged here

I have merged unbirth here. I hope there are no objections! Lotusduck 16:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if the Unbirth section may be able to be pushed out into it's own article - the two philias seem rather tangentially related, and considering the bunch of new information that the Unbirth section has started to pick up, it might well be a candidate for an article of it's own.
I'll probably nove the section in a week if there are no objections. -- Kirby1024 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I vote for having them be two separate articles... they are only related tangently, if that, and in many cases they are completely separate. Sylocat 02:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, make it a new article! crazyfurf
There are no reliable sources to support an independant article. NeoFreak 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody deleted Cock Vore

This has been removed: "- A male version of this fetish, known as cock vore, referring to a person's desire to enter a male body through the urethra, has developed along side it (and may have derived from it), though it is less common than its sister fetish and is usually played alongside hypertrophia/hyperphallia in sexual role-play. It is often associated with (though not exclusive to) the furry fandom, specifically its erotic subgenre yiff.

- How this fetish came about is unknown, although it may have links to urethral sounding, a urological medical practice that has been incorporated into the fetish of cock and ball torture. Considering how small the urethra is compared to the size of a normal human body, this fetish is usually role-played alongside hyperphallia. Though most sessions end similar to unbirth, in which the character is curled up securely and comfortably within the stomach area of their partner, some characters are forced into their partner's testicles, in which their body is broken down through unknown means and transformed into semen used to fuel their partner's own orgasm."

I believe that I could remove what this person put up under the same reasoning they use--this doesn't make sense to me and my thoughts on what vore is, so it's gone. What does everyone else think? This is why we have to cite our sources, so that people can't take down anything and put up anything else under the guise of "I know what I'm talking about." But what do you people think? What's central and important to the Vore article? Lotusduck 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with citing sources for vorarephilia and other such 'non-mainstream' fetishes is, of course, that few sources exist. Well - actually - that's inaccurate. Few sources exist that don't consist of members of the 'vore fandom' - I don't think anyone has written a book about us yet. ...If they have, though, uh... Hey, point me in that direction, wouldja? >.> User: Kaoru Nagisa 1:09 AM

    William Levy has written a Vore book, and if he included a bibliography page, we may be able to     
    pull some credible references from it.  I don't think we can quote Bill himself; professional
    cartoonists aren't exactly credible sources for psychological matter. ;)  --Animakitty 00:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

I've removed all of the unsourced, original research and conjecture from the article and put it into a introductory stub format. I haven't yet been able to find any reliable sources on Vorarephilia but will continue to look, help would be appreciated. Some form of Vorarephilia no doubt exists as evidenced by the fan community on the internet but none of these websites meet the standards of encyclodepic sources. NeoFreak 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Are the links really appropriate? I'm not asking appropriate as in censorship, but they appear to be personal sites/message boards. As they aren't RSs and don't seem related, I'm not sure why they appear here. Titanium Dragon 10:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think so. The problem is there are so few sources on this topic that without some kind of proof that it even exists than it would need to be deleted. Since these sites fail WP:RS they can't be used as sources. Still, external links have much looser guidlines and these links can be used to demonstrate that the philia does, in fact, exist. I am hoping that some other actual sources will emerge and the links can be shit canned. I was planning on pruning the links section though, feel free is you would like to do it yourself. NeoFreak 21:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Look...there are certain things that the normal article criteria simply do not work for. The deletion criteria are meant to improve the usefulness of Wikipedia, not serve as an excuse for hacking out every article you find that meets them.
You're using the fact that there are no large-scale sources to support the assertion that the article has no relevance, but the truth is that the fact that there are no sources has no relevance to the article. The fact that Time Magazine has never written an article on it doesn't make it disappear. That's just stupid. There's a lot of vores and there's a lot to know about the different permeations of it. However, the only people who know those things are vores. Thus, the only way you're going to have any information at all is from "original research."
In short, the deletion criteria are betraying their intended function. There's f***loads of proof that vorarephilia exists and there's a lot of information to be had, but all of it violates Wikipedia's policies. We're not allowed to link to our own community pages or write articles about ourselves, even though we're the only ones who KNOW anything. In a nutshell, Wikipedia is telling vores that we don't exist, and intentionally locking out all the proof that we do.
It's retarded to assume something entirely unscientific doesn't exist just because there's no scientific papers on it. Dismissing the input of a person who has a fetish when talking about that fetish is equally retarded. Telling that person that he needs to bring external proof that the fetish even exists transcends retarded and elevates into pure delusion.
Yes, I'm a vore. Stop and think what this looks like from my perspective, given that you're basically saying that the deletion criteria justifies believing that you don't exist. What would your first impulse be?
Hello? We're RIGHT HERE. WE EXIST. Trust me. I just checked. Took a pulse and everything. If the deletion criteria say we don't, then it's the deletion criteria that are wrong, not us. It's kind of hard to justify thinking otherwise, since if that were the case I couldn't be typing this.24.2.94.25 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Duamutef

Why has a large section been deleated? This wasn't stub when I first read it! MJN SEIFER 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Because most of the content on the page could not be sourced, or was otherwise original research. Content on wikipedia pages needs to be sourced from other references, rather than sourced by wikipedia authors. -- Kirby1024 12:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame really, because most of it was true. And I should know for reasons that should be obvious MJN SEIFER

Age

Would it be ok to add that you can get this "fetish" (If that's really how we have to describe it) at a young age (I started around five, although It took me years to learn of the term "Vore" and the like.) Now I don't know how common it is to have fetishes at the age of a child, as this is the only one I have but I have spoken to other voraphiles (On Line) and (Like me) say they remember being "turned On" (For lack over a better term) by vorish scene (Most of which from cartoons as being swallowed is quite comon scene there) When they were young children - So it's direct fact in a sense. MJN SEIFER

Can you verify that this assertion is fact by providing a reliable source? It seems to me this is original research which is not allowed. NeoFreak 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you verify that you, as an editor, exist by providing a reliable source? Just, you know. Out of curiousity.
The problem is with the policy, not the article.24.2.94.25 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Duamutef
Shall I get you a tissue? If you have a problem with the policy this is not the place to cry about it. Instead of sarcasm, attempts at wit and broadcasting your total lack of understanding of why wikipedia rules on verifiability exist why don't you shuffle over to the policy pages or the village pump and in a kind and civil tone inquire what you can do to go about changing these things. Try the talk pages. In the mean time I shall bone up the polices on not biting newbies and civility. NeoFreak 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The following are various threads from a vore forum I am a member of, I hope that counts. Although there will be others, Some of the posts stated that some of them started young (Although most of them - like me - didn't know that it was a named term).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

I hope these are enough - although I'm suprised "real Life" evidence is classed as "Original Research". MJN SEIFER

Internet forums, usenet groups, etc are not accepted as reliable soures. I would suggest you read the policy on reliable source: WP:RS. Once you have read that and the policies on verifiability and original research you will have a better understanding of what is and is not acceptable. NeoFreak 20:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, I will not use forums as "sources" in future.

Just a question: Surley the fact that I AM ONE should be enough evidense? (If not fine but I'd like to know why) MJN SEIFER

Click this link. Read it. NeoFreak 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough...I guess. MJN SEIFER

Why delete this

Why is this being conciderd for deletion? First a lot of stuff is taken out, then you plan on deleting it? Do we even matter to you?MJN SEIFER

The reason this article is being considered for deletion is probably because there are so few reliable sources on the subject that it's questionable by wikipedia standards on wether or not it even exists. With so few sources, there is no way to put enough information down to explain what the thing even is, so for wikipedia it would just be easier to delete it. What needs to happen for this article to stay up, and just in general, is a reliable source be published on the subject. If someone were to go through the bureaucratic scientific process of taking notes, listing sources, citing surveys, chalking up numbers and graphs, then this won't be such an obscure subject.Animowolf 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If Abe Lincoln came back to life and posted to say that he saw the man who shot him, and it wasn't Booth, would you delete it? Of course! After all, who's Abe Lincoln? Just some guy who got shot. What does he know about it? We all know that the real facts come only from pre-existing knowledge in history textbooks. By extension, I wish to remind people here that all knowledge decends from some manner of peer-review by experts. Experts are generally those that invent/discover/live through the topic to be discussed. Sometimes, these experts don't meet pre-established notions of what an expert should be. Let's just remember that the WP:RS page begins with the following warning: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." 71.232.192.57 01:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Alarmed Guest.

Please avoid personal attacks on the talk page. This is just one of the many sections that I've seen flame wars on. There are already far too many, and I'm considering removing them all myself. Everyone here needs to remember the "assume good faith" rule of thumb. Wiki wants reliability, everyone else wants information, and everyone must compromise. In this particularly case, I would urge the mods to be more generous in information that is permitted, as well as some of the vores to take this less personally and be more patient, or possibly even try to write a publication of some sort on this.
Now be nice, or nobody gets eaten. Animowolf 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
“Everyone else wants information”? How does deleting this or any article help anyone get information on a subject that already has “so few reliable sources”? If I come across a word I’ve never seen before, and I look it up on Wikipedia, I don’t want to see a blank page. I want to see at least a description, if details are too suspect. —69.172.154.213 01:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


I believe the main problem here, is not whether people exist who are afflicted with what is being called here, vorarephilia. I for one find myself aroused by images, stories and even thoughts of being eaten alive, so I know that the condition of the fetish is quite real. The problem, however, is the use of the word, vorarephilia. This is a term that has been applied by the people who 'suffer' from this fetish, and not by any established, medical institution.

New words and terms are added to the dictionary every year, but even those must go through a process of peer reviews, before being accepted. In time, I suspect vorarephilia will be a defined word as a recognized sexual fetish, though the definition given to it is still anybody's guess. The question now, is if wikipedia is willing to accept a new term. Perhaps it could be categorized as 'slang', as you will often find in dictionaries, until the word is properly added as legitimate. I for one, believe this entry should be kept, though the context of the entry should make it clear that a definitive, alternate term has not yet been formulated by the psychiatric establishment. Amberax 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What you are reffering to is called a neologism. The wikipedia guildlines for how to deal with neologisms can be found here. NeoFreak 01:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look mom! I don't exsist.

Despite the rather sarcastic title, I am not going to rant about this as others have. I simply do not understand how there is not enough proof that we exsist. Placing "vore" into nearly any search engine will bring forth several results on us.

Any scientific research into the subject, even done by vores, has failed- not because it does not exsist, but simply because "vore" is too broad a subject to easily explain away. Several attempts have been made to explain exactly why we like vore. I myself have conducted polls among vore, only to find each one seems to enjoy an entirely different aspect of it.

From what I have learned, several vores simply did not move out from the oral phase. Another selection enjoy it due to extreme domination/submission roles. Others enjoy it due to the fatality of it, and still more simply like the feeling of "completely satifying thier pred in any way possible."

I am certain that scientific research has not been conducted to prove the exsistence of storylines for videogames, which wikipedia continues to host. However, the storylines have been experienced, and that is proof enough that they exsist. Before simply deleting this article, I would ask you to attempt to study the vorephile community yourself- to experience it, just the way plots from stories have been verified through experience. http://www.aryion.com is a very steady source, as it contains a vore wiki, vore and unbirth forums, and a chatroom where vore, as a fetish, takes place at almost nearly any time during the day. If believing the word of several vores is not enough, please conduct the research yourself.

"What if?" 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)SeruOmen

There are three possibilities for why this is happening. 1.) There is a vast anti-vore conspiracy and all these editors just hate you. 2.) That all these editors are retarded and can't establish the fact that vore is a real fetish. 3.) There is a good reason that these policies, developed over years by thousands of dedicated editors, are in place.
If you so choose to adopt one of the first two positions then I don't know what else to tell you. Go play in traffic maybe. If you so choose to entertain, for just a moment, that the third explanation might just be possible then I would recommend that you actually read the policy pages and spend some time discussing these poices on their respective talk pages. Maybe then you will get a better understanding of why these policies exist and wy things are run the way they are here. Maybe. NeoFreak 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Those are not the only three possibilities. For example: 4) Wikipedia is still in it's infancy, and the rules that exist, while good for many things, are far from perfect. As is true with any system, especially new systems, the rules may cause some subjects to fall through the cracks, and show a bias in one way or another. In these cases, judgment calls must be made.
Wikipedia's rules need some tweaking, and will need tweaking for quite a while. As it stands right now, there are plenty of articles that exist and shouldn't, and some that don't exist and should. 71.223.116.248 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Two articles mentioning vore

I've found two articles that aren't about vore, but do mention it, although the definitions aren't 100% accurate.

[5]

[6]

71.158.179.102 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Vorarephilia really a Paraphilia?

On the off chance the entry for Vorarephilia is not deleted, should it be associated with Paraphilia? According to the definition of Paraphilia ( http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/paraphilia.html ), it is: "...a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme."

While vorarephilia does result in sexual arousal, it does not require the engaging in any manner of sexual behavior or activity. I believe this is one of the things that makes vorarephilia so confusing to many people; especially those who are not vorarephiles themselves. The intense desire to eat or be eaten does not require sexual interaction, as evidenced by those who wish to be eaten by animals, but have no physical attraction to that animal. Or those who enjoy the idea of being eaten by inanimate objects, such as furniture or machines.

Perhaps as vorarephilia becomes more widely recognized, real research will be done and a better understanding of how to classify it will be discovered. Amberax 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as sexology and psychological studies would be concerned, vorarephilia would most certainly fit as a paraphilia. Certainly, the paraphilia page seems to specify this. The term "paraphilia" in most psychological/sexological research is used primarily as an umbrella term to describe atypical sexual behaviour, which vorarephilia most certainly would be, compared to the general populace. Typically, arousal is enough to be counted as a paraphilia, as noted in the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criterion for paedophilia - arousal + distress is sufficient for clinical diagnosis, participating in the act is not required. -- Kirby1024 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


The problem with having links is that many of them would be considered unsuitable. As it is, this page should be expanded upon, being one of the very few definitive sources for its definition.

Unsuitable how? As for the page being expanded because it is a "definitive source" wikipedia does not condone original research and can only use information that is already published by a reliable source. NeoFreak 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Attributability

This is one of the more likely to be attribute-able kinky pages I've seen, but nobody seems to have taken the time. I'm sure if I nominate it for deletion, if there is a published source that talks about vore, someone will find it then. But must I? Can't someone just do it?Lotusduck 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added one--Sex in Video Games by Brenda Brathwaite. I think it may have been brought up in a previous AfD, but never actually added to the article. The book is pretty new, and the only one I could find easily, but as with all things largely internet-based, I think that we can expect more publications in the coming years. --Sopoforic 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you then agree that we lack the sources to expand this to full article status while conforming to attributab-ility? If that is the case, this and related stubs should be grouped together in a single article. Lotusduck 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know. There's the straight dope article in addition to the textbook I found, and there are probably a few others if I were to look. If you want to talk about merging, then you'll need to give me a list of what stubs you think ought to be merged together before I can make any sort of judgment. I am of the opinion that if we cannot (now) find enough reliable information to make this very much more than a stub, that probably won't be the case in the near future (a year or two is near, in my opinion). I'll look around later for any other sources while I wait for your response. --Sopoforic 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The question we need to ask is what form of stub this article should be in. Mering unattibutable material is really not productive as the material can just be removed from the end-product which will cause a recreation of this article. Of course this can also be taken to AfD (again) but the "Vore community" will rally in indignation of such "persecution" (again) and the closing adimn will fail to do his job and close the AfD according to consensus based on policy (again) which will result in a keep based on the wishy-washy "maybes" and "might be's" of the inclusionist crowd and the outraged hoard of single purpose accounts (again). So, my suggestion is to keep this as a small stub based on the bare minumum of what we can gather from the material on the net. This is not a "fake" fantasy fetish so I'll just have to advocate biting the bullet and accepting that this article is not going anywhere. NeoFreak 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Microphilia and macrophilia are two very related stubs that could be merged into some common article with vore that I am not currently clever enough to think of the title for. Is there a technical term for sexual fantasies that cannot practically happen in reality? If so, we could put all of these stubs in that article. If we can't we could just settle for Imaginary sexual fantasies or List of Imaginary sexual fantasies. Of course a few would have a short description with a link to the longer article like tentacle rape. I'm starting to think this is actually a good idea... Lotusduck 07:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you realy want to work on merging Paraphilia articles then I would suggest you start in the "Garment Fetishes". Check out the bottom of this page for a list of stubs that are either unscourced or sparringly so. I was planning on merging these into a single much more easily attributable "Garment Fetish" article. We can get rid of 20 unneeded articles right there with a general overview of the concept of the fetish and then a few examples citing the more notable ones already given individual coverage.
As for "Imaginary Fetishes" I think the appropriate term is "Fantasy Fetish" but I'm not the expert, you might want to ask another editor of at the Paraphilia article.
Also, Marcro and Microphila used to be merged but they got unmerged for whatever reason, I fully support you remerging them. NeoFreak 12:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

literary reference

In John Steinbeck's story, "The Snake", a woman visits a scientist's laboratory and asks to buy a rattlesnake, and to watch while it swallows a rat whole. She seems to participate in the ingestion, following the snake's movements with her face. Vorarephilia? We know that the scientist is based on Steinbeck's friend Ed Ricketts, who may once have had a visit of this kind. Caesarc 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. In order for something to be a source for our definition of vorarephilia it must use that word, otherwise we are participating in original research. Secondly, that makes no sense. This page is for a sexual fantasy. There are probably quite a lot of literary passages where someone watches someone or something eat. Lotusduck 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Standards of documentation=

Primary literary or other media sources are sufficient to document a name for a type of behavior,and to document that this behavior is something which people either do or fantasize about. They by themsselves justify an article if the behavior is worth the description. For behavior with no established name but that nonetheless deserves discussion, we can use the most likely name constructed parallel to other such behaviors; if the ultimate name should change, the articles can be edited accordingly. DGG 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting that we should decide what the definitions of words are and create encyclopedic classifications and distinctions rather than document them, although I am not really sure what you are talking about here. Lotusduck 00:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to update the information provided for "Vore"

I propose for the following changes. #1 The spelling; Voraphillia has been just as commonly used, if not more than Vorarephillia. #2 Vore in it self is not a fetish, its an act. To be more precise, its the act of swallowing someone or something, or being consumed or swallowed by someone or something whole. This act is recognized and regarded as a fetish only by those that create and, or observe the act specifically for sexual gratification. Not every vore act is designed, or viewed for fetish purposes, therefore Vore and Voraphillia should not be classified together, but should instead have there own pages.

  My final proposal is to add the other available mediums that safely display vore.  Currently there is no mention of the movie shorts and videos comprised of full size props with live actresses & Actors.

Reddmann 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reddmann (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Myself and of course most people viewing the article are not experts. We must act in good faith, but we must also edit the article. Your assertions are not uncontroversial and not obviously true, so I think that you should add what you are talking about only when you can attribute to a published article or book that says what you have just said. Lotusduck 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

mergemerge

I removed all of the unreferenced material just now. With what is referenced, it appears a merge to containment fetish or macrophilia would be appropriate. thoughts?Lotusduck 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against merging, since the only material we really have references for amounts to little more than a dictionary definition, but there are two points I'd like to mention: first, we have no article 'containment fetish' and I'm not sure what would go in it except for this (would you put things from BDSM with it? that probably wouldn't be appropriate); second, vorarephilia isn't related to macrophilia, so there's no good reason to merge into it, and I think that the fact that they are unrelated is a very good reason not to do so.
That said, we have a lot of articles which are only a couple of sentences and might reasonably be merged into one article of lesser fetishes. I've gone through the list of fetishes in the template and picked the ones that are extremely short. These are: Vorarephilia, Somnophilia, Spitting fetishism, Spectrophilia, Amaurophilia, Anaclitism, Andromimetophilia, Biastophilia, Breast expansion fetish, Clothed female, naked male, Dacryphilia, Fur fetishism, Homeovestism, Macrophilia, Mask fetishism, Mysophilia, Sweat fetish, Teratophilia, and Wakamezake. These are the shortest of the articles in the box; some (few) of them do have references, although many of the references are somewhat suspect. Also, I think a few of these could probably be expanded to larger articles--in particular, Biastophilia is 'rape fetish,' which I imagine has been written about at some length. Further, a few of these have tags recommending they be merged into other articles; this would be helpful probably. However, better targets for merging aside, I'd support merging all of these into a 'list of uncommon fetishes' or such article, and just using section references for them, and splitting them off if and when we have enough content for more than a couple of paragraphs.
You might find that more than a few of the others listed in the box would be better merged once the unsourced (unsourcable) material is removed, especially since many of those that I didn't list also have no references. But, one thing at a time. I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether this would be appropriate. --Sopoforic 08:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have further discovered that the only citation mentions vore for a half of a paragraph, and basically says that people that like vore like video games. It definitely can't stand alone as an article and should be merged somewhere. Lotusduck 03:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vore is NOT the fetish (Voreraphilia)

There are very few, if any, resources available for one to look up & research vore. This means that others that do not understand will depend on your information provided here to get an understanding. For you to label Vore along with its fetish counterpart "Voreraphillia", would be the same as directing all inquiries of feet to "Footfetish"; individuals who love blood and gory movies would be automatically labeled "Masochist, or saddist". They may not like snuff films, but love Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. Should we then label magazines showing off feet for pedicure products and sandals as Fetish publications? movies involving kidnappings and hostages fall under "Bondage"? The meaning of Vore is no different. example, how about the national geographics, and Animal Planet episodes depicting a snake eating a rabbit whole? Does this mean that PBS, the Learning Channel & educational television condone the broadcasting of TV shows to Jerk off to? YouTube is probably the most mainstream outlet currently depicting all facids of vore. If you look it up there, you'll see episodes of the muppet show where Ms. Piggy was eaten by an alien, scenes from cartoons, video games, children's movies & Books, even commercials. Do you really think these organizations would intentionally create childrens material designed for people to masterbate to while watching? Of course not. This factor alone should be concrete enough evidence to show that vore in itself is NOT A FETISH. Classifying these commonly accepted and harmless acts as Fetish will implicate all vore material as sexually deviant. Altering the perception of vore falsely will ultimately sway public opinion of any works related as inappropriate, thus causing the unecessary CENSURING of good entertaining material. For the record, I do realize that there are many depictions of vore that are truely sexually driven in nature and fetish intended, just as there are perversions of about anything you could think of, from arm pit fetishes to boot licking. These, however, do NOT represent the general meaning of vore. I strongly feel that the definition of Vore remains as the process of devouring something whole, and nothing more. This has always been its meaning. Voraphilliacs use the term Vore to describe what turns them on. The way one fetishist may say "I'm in to FEET", a voraphilliac may say "I'm in to Vore". Vore isn't the fetish. the Fetish lies in the person that appreciates the vore act for sexual gratification. Reddmann 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reddmann (talk • contribs) 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

While most of the time I'd just say "Hey, no sources? Too bad." In this case though we don't have the a reliable source to back up the fetish being refered to as just Vore, although I'm sure some do. It also seems to be more of a semantic or grammatical issue than an issue with the accuracy of terms. I've removed it. NeoFreak 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Vore to have an independent definition thread

I checked here on one occassion (maybe about 3 or 4 days ago), and Vore had its own definition page. The info was quite accurate. It basically described Vore as meaning to take in/eat or swallow something whole, and discussed the use of the word as a suffix to describe what an animal may eat(herbivore, carnivore, omnivore). It also explained that the word originates from the word Vorare, which means to devour something. This is the most accurate, and appropriate description/depiction regarding the purpose of this word. I propose for that to be the the information available to a Vore search, instead of directing someone to the fetish counterpart (vorarephilia). Reddmann 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reddmann (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
Agree, except that you are talking about a disambiguation page. I'll go make it, actually.Lotusduck 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)