Talk:Plushophilia

Validity

NOT A REAL FETISH. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.153.248.196 (talk)

It Is There was even an entire section on it in a Dolly, Girlfriend or Cleo mag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.217.157.119 (talk)

Anything can be a sexual fetish. How would you define a "real" fetish? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.141.159.252 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 26 January 2007.

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted!

It is a patent absurdity, and an obvious internet hoax. The only data I've ever seen which suggests "plushophiles" exist, found that one percent of self-described "furries" are "plushophiles." Yet the margin for error in such a survey is clearly a good deal more than one percent. There may exist (why?) some humans who think it is somehow neat to claim to be sexually aroused by stuffed animal toys, but those people are not being sincere, as should be self-evident to anyone with a modicum of common sense. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Internet Hoax?? Obviously you weren't around during the days of USEnet when these people would talk incessantly on the alt boards about the best ways to clean plushies after sexual activity and modifying them with SPH's. (Strategically Placed Holes). Drop into the UseNet archives and there are YEARS of people talking about their activity. That's too much for a hoax. They exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.34.53 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend is correct. In fact you will find some modified plushies at the New York Museum of Sex. See here, here and here (registration required). Of course, describing yourself as a "plushophile" does not necessarily mean you have a fetish for them, and the article should reflect this, but some certainly do. GreenReaper (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether they exist or not is not relevant. This is a neologism and a non-notable neologism at that. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary and it isn't Urban Dictionary for sure. This article should be deleted soon. Vivaldi (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll come out and admit right here that I fall under this particular topic, and are biased as such. However, that being said, I would like to note that this fetish (or whatever you'd like to call it) has been in peer reviewed journals of medicine, and is recognized among the scientific community. While it's not beyond the realm of possibility for the article to be deleted (the sources aren't the strongest in the world), it's definately not a candidate for speedy deletion or prod. Put it up for an AfD vote. Lithorien (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I do not have any opinion on whether this page should be deleted, but just to help keep the discussion a complete one: Although the term was started by enthusiasts, it has indeed been used by professional sexologists in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Lawrence, A. A. (2009). Erotic target location errors: An underappreciated paraphilic dimension. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 194-215. I can email you a copy, if you like.). Some more "scientific sounding" terms have been proposed, but none has caught on yet.— James Cantor (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the person who called it a hoax is new the internet or something. I remember the internet way back in the 90's when it was first starting out and there were various fringe groups back then and most normies didn't go on the internet because they found it confusing. I remember some plushophilia boards from way back thenWerewolffan98 (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Reverted merge to furry fandom

I have reverted the merge to furry fandom - it's about as appropriate as merging food play to Iron Chef. Furry fandom is about fans of anthropomorphic animals, not lovers of plush toys, which may not be animals of any kind (cf. Weighted Companion Cube). GreenReaper (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I DELETED THE LINK TO THE IMAGE!

Am I wrong or what? It's okay to show a penis, as the caption used to say, "yiffing", and that means, penetrating, a stuffed animal? Huh? Can Wikipedia do that? I've not read the rules, but, oh, I've got a gut feeling about that being just plain wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7f2:2380:303c::1 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid your gut feeling is wrong, and certainly isn't a justification to remove content. Wikipedia is not censored, so unless the image is irrelevant, cannot be used due to copyright restrictions, or can be replaced with a more suitable image, it stays. Owen× ☎ 21:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There's next to no encyclopedic value in a guy fucking a stuffed animal. The text does not support the relevance of the picture within the body of the article, and the topic of the article is more general than specific sexual habits. Even in articles with explicit sex positions (like 69 (sex position)), the images are more tasteful and are of greater educational value than what would be relevant here.

So if you want to expand the article text to include cited references to plushie fucking, then I would be okay with an artistic depiction of that act. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP who started this discussion did NOT remove the image. I did, and it was because I felt the image served no encyclopedic value, and was too graphic for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT a porn site. It's just common sense, really. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "too graphic for Wikipedia". As I said above, Wikipedia is not censored. Either the image helps the reader grasp the concepts described in the article's text, or it doesn't. Any other considerations are irrelevant. If the image offends your sensibilities, you are welcome to switch to an encyclopaedia that does censor its articles, but you are not entitled to enforce your puritanical views of what is or isn't "too graphic". Unless you can come up with a reason supported by one of our policies to hide this image, I'll restore it to the page. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This may or may not help my case, but I feel the need to quote WP:COMMON: "Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment." ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note the following text that is immediately after what you quoted: "When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance." --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 22:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

While the image presented is extremely graphic, Wikipedia is not censored. In addition, the article specifically calls out the sexual aspect of, well, plushophilia. I would agree with OwenX's stance that the image is perfectly acceptable as an illustration of one side of plushophilia. Especially in cases of sexual fetishes, some explanations are not easy to understand with just the written word. For ease of understanding and lack of a more suitable image (it's hard to find clinical pictures of sexual acts, impossible for less mainstream ones) I am going to restore the image. --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 04:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that if a more suitable image is found then it could replace the current one. However, I was not able to find another image that had the appropriate licensing, hence the current image. Blizzardpaws (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the image be kept on the page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the image be kept on the page? Personally, I think there is no encyclopedic value in the current image in use, and the article text does not support the relevance of the picture. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 16:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep the image on the page. There is always going to be opposition to certain kinds of graphics based on subjective beliefs. That does not mean that the graphics are "inappropriate" for an encyclopedia. For example, Germany bans the use of Nazi imagery. Most would say that Nazi symbols could be considered grossly offensive to those in Germany. Those Germans would say that Nazi imagery should be removed from Wikipedia based on a subjective moral belief, and could make the argument that the symbology could be explained in text (or that it's not needed in the first place, as is being argued here). Most Wikipedians would disagree with that assessment, and the situation stands here. The graphic on the page is used as an illustration of an act that is extremely hard to explain through text but is referenced by the term "Yiff". To remove the graphic is to put the reader at a disadvantage in understanding. --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 22:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Take into consideration this line from WP:Image use policy#Content: "Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article." ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 22:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

While you are absolutely correct in citing the image use policy, I stand by the statement as a whole to include, "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." Why do you believe that the image in question is being used solely to bring attention to the article? --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the uploader is a relatively new contributor. The image upload, before all of this happened, was his only contribution to the encyclopedia. I honestly don't know - or think - if/that he read any of the policies before uploading the image. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. It certainly calls into question the motivation of the original uploader. Looking at their current contributions, though, it doesn't appear that they were acting as a vandal (no further questionable edits) and that they were acting in good faith. I wish there had been something left on the uploader's talk page to make the revert a little less bitey, but what's been done is done. On the subject of the image itself, while the source was questionable, do you have any specific objections to the image itself? If I recall correctly, you are arguing that it's pornographic and irrelevant, correct? --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 23:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. Even the images on other sex-related articles, while inappropriate for minors, are more tasteful and actually do something to further the reader's understanding of the topic. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Electricburst1996: Hi! The fact that the image has been on this page for some time now and you only recently started removing it (with all of your removals being contested), means that the image being here is the current consensus on the matter and you are simply one wditor going against the consesus. You need to read this. Quickly.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Now I've got some idea of what's going on in your head, and I appreciate that. So my next question would be, if I could find a fair use image along these lines (where an inanimate object is used in place of a penis for illustration purposes), would that be more acceptable in your mind? And, @Cebr1979:, the image was only added on 27 Jan of this year. Given the age of the article, that's not long at all. Would you care to join us in coming to a resolution about the image itself, and if you have an issue with a certain editor, perhaps take it to their talk page? --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The date doesn't matter. The fact that it wasn't contested and Electricburst1996's have been means it is the consensus regardless. As for their talk page: been there, done that. Go see for yourself.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That's marginally better. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Electricburst1996: Ok. In the spirit of collaboration, I'll look for a less explicit image that still illustrates the point. I can't promise I'll have it tonight, but as soon as possible. Is that acceptable to you? I would ask that in the meantime if we can keep the image as existing in the article, but I will search regardless. --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 01:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. I really appreciate it. --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 01:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that if another image can be found that can be used then it should be used. I was not able to find one with appropriate licensing, hence the current image. Blizzardpaws (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• I would suggest finding a better image. The current one seems more gratuitous than encyclopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. While I'm no fan of the paraphilia nor of this type of images, I find the picture less disturbing than, say, many of those we have for articles about certain medical conditions. But my own tastes are irrelevant here. The only question before us is, does the image help readers understand the article or not? As Lithorien and others pointed out, unless we have an encyclopaedic reason to remove the image, it should stay. Owen× ☎ 18:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment A new image has been uploaded and the old image replaced. Hopefully this is acceptable to all parties. Pinging @Electricburst1996, Cebr1979, OwenX, and Blizzardpaws: for comment. --Lithorien ^{Talk • Changes} 12:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  Looks fine to me. Lithorien, I appreciate your effort to find a replacement image. Whether or not appeasing the prudish sensibilities of some editors was a good use of your time, only you can say. Owen× ☎ 01:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

  I'm fine with the new image. Blizzardpaws (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep some image per above. Most readers won't have a clear understanding of the topic without such an image. They simply will not have seen such an item in their day-to-day lives. It now appears to have been deleted, however. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Images are okay - Brought here by LegoBot. Currently no image on the page (unclear why it was deleted), but I see reason not to have an illustrative image on the page. I'd prefer an image of just a stuffed animal without anyone using it as it would illustrate the subject with "least shock". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Plushophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080723203259/http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2001/041201/cover.html to http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2001/041201/cover.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Better distinction needed

Anyone familiar with this topic (in any capacity) knows that there's a generally rather sharp distinction between the plushy and furry scenes. The 4% figure quote supports this, but the stub still makes it seem like plushies are a type of furry, just a rare one. This is not the case. Furthermore, most plushies are into other people dressed as stuffed animals, not into "activities" with stuff animals themselves. These phenomena are different. 2601:643:8300:C96D:C035:804A:B523:85E2 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stoya 2006 BTA67A 71 DSCF1080.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Donations

This sort of article is a good reason to refrain from contributing during Wikipedia funding drives. You must already have more money than you know what to do with. 24.144.47.145 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

If thou question is important than thee neighbor, then thee shall talk not

It should not be Denied not deleted, if thee wants it be gone, then they shall know not. 2601:547:1501:32B0:5457:E477:BFE8:54D5 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is there a LGBT portal box in the article?

Why is there a LGBT portal box in the article near the bottom of the page? Paraphilias are not LGBT. I removed the LGBT portal box and the LGBT link in the see also part of the page.