Talk:Statuephilia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have moved the article from Agalmatophilia to Statuephilia mainly because the latter term is les sesoteric and is the one used in the Transformation fetish article. Lee M 13:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Text from previous post by 67.85.248.142, since removed by Boothy443 (thanks):
- As I understand it, people who are known Agalmatophiliacs include: you.
Cheap shot. If it was just me there wouldn't be a portal linking to half a dozen related websites, would there?! Lee M 23:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure that impressionable young men being aroused by mannequins counts as agalmatophilia - after all, they're imagining that the mannequins are real and not the other way around! However, I haven't deleted the paragraph in question. Lee M 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's sort of like saying men who are aroused while reading Playboy magazine are attracted to the paper, rather than the person being depicted.
Contents |
[edit] ASFR
I'm removing both references to ASFR. Whoever put them there can put one back in a more appropriate place with some kind of context and explanation as to what people are actually supposed to "see".
- (see: ASFR or alt.sex.fetish.robots)
FireWorks 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not a promotion - ASFR is a newsgroup, not a web site. That being said, it probably belongs in the Robot fetishism page. --Zetawoof 01:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- There was an asfr.com website, but it was abandoned and cybersquatted by some crap search engine. The term ASFR is used more generally to refer to the robot and statue fetish communities, which should probably be mentioned in the article. Lee M 12:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
Rewrote for clarity and to add a few more links, also removed section on "Islamist's campaign against Agalmatophilia" which wasn't strictly relevant after all Lee M 13:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] suggest merge with robot love
There's almost no real info on the robot fetish page, and it mostly discusses similar things as this. Anyway, I think they should be merged. Also, is the further reading sources for this information? If it isn't, this page needs sources, like all wikipedia articles. Lotusduck 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I think the page should stay at statuephilia and anything true from robot fetish should be moved here and robot fetish should be the redirect. Lotusduck 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Robot and statue fetishism are related but separate. Keep them as separate articles. Lee M 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of external links
Unhappy with the removal of external links to statuephile sites as "advertising". Their removal also invalidates the mention of an internet community in the article since this can no longer be confirmed by following the links. Lee M 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Go ahead and put the links back. However, information on the article can only be confirmed through 'reliable published sources' according to policy. Lotusduck 02:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] merge
While the article itself is not written from these sources, this article does have sources. As such, I will suggest that Robot fetish, which does not have sources, be merged here rather than the other way around. Lotusduck 18:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
