Talk:Plushophilia: Difference between revisions
James Cantor (talk | contribs) Cmt |
Merged to Furry fandom |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} |
{{talkheader}} |
||
{{WP Sexuality|class=start|importance=low}} |
{{WP Sexuality|class=start|importance=low}} |
||
{{copied|from=Plushophile|to=Furry fandom|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Furry_fandom&oldid=301929106}} |
|||
== This article should be deleted! == |
== This article should be deleted! == |
||
Revision as of 21:09, 13 July 2009
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plushophilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Plushophile was copied or moved into Furry fandom with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
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)
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)