Talk:Smoking fetishism

message: Can a responsible editor check to see if there are nay useful external links for this article? Somehow it has become a target for linkspam. -Will Beback 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Some of the subfetishes do not really seem to be fetishes in the technical sense of the word (i.e., a sexual attraction towards an object or body parts). Forced smoking seems more of a submissive thing, and there is no "object" here. Human ashtray similarly is a submissive or masochistic act. I've reworded it accordingly. Mdwh 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are many subfetishes.  Like the preference for all-whites as opposed to cork tips (or vice-versa).  Or long ashes as opposed to short ashes.  Or french inhales.  Or rings.  Or multiple exhales.  Or tight cone exhales.  Or... Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subfetishes not really fetishes 

message: I removed a bunch of text which was entirely unsourced and probably original research.  Feel free to put it back if reliable sources can be found.  Here is the text I took out:  
" Related paraphilia 
Forced smoking 
Forced smoking is where people like to be forced to smoke cigarettes. Sometimes this can be with a cigarette forced into their mouths, or it can be having smoke blown into your mouth.
:See Coherent Light videos.  Not my thing but they exist.
Pregnant smoking 
Pregnant smoking is where people love to see heavily pregnant women smoking cigarettes or cigars. It depends upon the individual as to whether the 'turn-on' is the damage that smoking while pregnant can do, or whether it's just how the 'bare stomached' woman sucks in the smoke or holds the cigarette
 Smoke play 
Smoke play covers a wide range of acts from smoking during sex or foreplay, to a woman using her cigarette as a tool to turn-on a man.
Coughing fetishism 
Coughing fetishism is a sexual fetish in which people like to watch other people coughing. It is often related to the smoking fetish.
Some people fascinated with coughing require a certain sound or effect, such as a smoker's cough, a dry cough, a wet, productive cough, emphysema, etc. For some, it's more important to hear a cough than to watch it.
 Human Ashtray 
Human Ashtray is where people like to be used as an ashtray for people who smoke. This can involve holding an ashtray for the smoker or having ash flicked into their hand.
Another part of this is to have your mouth used as the ashtray, having cigarette ash flicked into your mouth, and sometimes having the cigarette put out in the mouth, sometimes causing burns. The "ashtray" is sometimes made to eat the cigarette end.
Sometimes people have cigarette ash flicked onto their body, and have the cigarette put out on their body - again causing burns."
:Several commercial and non-commercial smoking fetish sites on the web prove that these sub-fetishes actually exist. See, for example http://www.smokingarchive.com and the sites linked thereon. --Langec 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they don't prove that.  They could all be attempts by cigarette companies to circumvent advertising bans and promotional bans by making smoking seem appealing.  I KNOW they're not, because I'm part of that community.  But then if I were I tobacco shill I would say that, wouldn't I?  This, in my opinion, is the fundamental problem (as far as the editors are concerned) of this article.  Is it real?  Short of submitting to a plethysmograph test I don't know how it could be proven.  And, at my age, it may not work anyway.  And even if it did, I'm a sample size of one. Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed a bunch of text

message: This page definitely needs a Bill Clinton reference! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.82.119 (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton 

message: It doesn't make since to me to have a picture of a man on the front of this page when the vast majority of smoke fetishers are heterosexual men. A picture of a female smoking would much better represent the fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmouse 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pmouse Agreed! Rsngfrce (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why A Picture Of A Man? 

message: It is but I wouldn't consider it one of the most Socially unacceptable, I suppose it would depend on what level the fetish goes to but compared to say Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Biastophilia and Pedophilia its saint like!!! Al-man53 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: some of us with the fetish have serious worries about the sort of implicit emotional blackmail that can result in revealing it to a partner.  "Keep smoking or I leave you."  And some of us don't care because we think with our small brain.  There are ethical issues.  Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socially unacceptable? 

message: This article has been tagged as unsourced for over a year. I've gone ahead and removed all the unsourced material, which was 95% of the article. As we find sources we can add additional info.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If folks keep adding unsourced material to this article we may have to propose it for deletion. Or, put more accurately, if we can't find even a single relaible source for this then it isn't notable enough for an article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way that we can tell bullshit from good shit is if the material can be verified. We've asked for sources for a year and none have appeared. If we can't find a source in the next week I'll nominate it for deletion.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, see WP:V, including: If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For these types of articles, the only sources available are the websites and newsgroups already referenced, and educated reasoning taking into account society's pressures and the existing sources. 86.144.4.78 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are reliable sources for WP purposes. Many fetishes are mentioned in scientific literature. Sites that do mention smoking fetishism often commercial sites that cater to fetishists, but don't tell us anything about the fetish itself. For example, SmokingCelebs.com or Smoke Signals (magazine). http://aphrodisiology.com/aol-fetishes is neutral, but we usually don't consider one-person sites to be reliable unless the author is a recognized expert (and in ths case he or she is anonymous, so that's a second trike against it). I suppose the existence of newsgroups is self-evident so we can mention their existence but we still can't use anything in them as references. What other sources are you proposing?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: I won't propose it for deletion in the near future due to it's recent AfD, which I just noticed at the top of the page. However I do see that most participants said the article should be stripped down or stubbed, and so we're following that recommendation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But when you only take those sources into account you'll most likely just end up with a very scientific article which won't reflect the social aspects of a smoking fetish. Also, is it really necessary to cite sources for common sense statements such as "Smoking fetishism ("capnolagnia") is a sexual fetish consisting of the smoking of tobacco and/or marijuana"?!?!  86.144.4.78 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whose opinion is that?  It's not a fact (and no, it's not "common sense", either)  Merriam-Webster doesn't define "capnolagnia".  Wikipedia is supposed to include only material that is verifiably true. Valrith 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC) Regarding the anon's last point, I'm not sure why the {fact} tag was added to that sentence. I suppose we could omit the names of the products being smoked. Regarding the possible sources, is there any specific page in the commercial sites or any specific posting in the newsgroups that we think has useful information for this article?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced material

message: I don't see the relevance of the current statements about newsgroups.  I doubt it's possible to find a reliable source that tells when newsgroups were created, but even if it is, I don't think they're notable... Valrith 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem self evident that the newsgroups are concerned with smoking fetishism, based on their titles alone. Since you've added {fact} tags to every sentence in this stub, can you propose how you'd like the article to read?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if their existence is self evident, what makes them relevant? I don't have a specific way I'd "like the article to read", I'd just like to see its statements be relevant and backed up by reliable sources... Valrith 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation we're in is that the article just survived an AfD, so we can't just nominate it for deletion. Since we have no sources, we really can't say anything verifiable, and can't assert that anything is relevant. We can't even prove that "smoking feitshism" is a fetish concerning smoking. What's our solution?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DRV? Seriously, how can this article have survived AfD except by administrative malfeasance? The article was prodded, and the prod lasted 5 days, but the admin that should have then deleted it took it to AfD instead, where another admin closed the AfD early. Valrith 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith on the part of others. As for these fetish articles, they suffer from too much text supported by few or no sources. I see you edit Breast fetishism, so you know what I mean (not a single listed source actually refers to breast fetishism). I think we should begin chopping all of them down to what's verifiable. Perhaps minor fetishes should be combined into a single article. I've posted a question about this on the main article's talk page, Talk:Sexual fetishism#Unsourced articles on fetishes.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Alt.sex.fetish.smoking was mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article on smoking fetishism, so I think that provides notability. Here's the quote: "Smoking buffs also congregate on the Internet at "alt.sex.fetish.smoking," a news group featuring a list of hundreds of women celebrities and whether they smoke on-screen or "IRL" (in real life)." From the article "Drag Queens: Paula Puffs and Her Fans Watch, Enraptured --- `Smoxploitation' Films Signal That Smoking Is Becoming A Fetish Among Many" by Suein L. Hwang, Jan 31, 1996. pg. A.1. Unfortunately the article is not freely available, but it can be found in the WSJ's pay-only archive and on ProQuest (http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=23873223&sid=5&Fmt=3&clientId=11206&RQT=309&VName=PQD). Should I add the citation to the article? POVpushee 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: alt.sex.fetish.smoking effectively died many years ago.  It was unmoderated so became a spam-haven.  It was replaced by the moderated alt.smokers.glamour. Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsgroups 

message: You have got to be kidding..a section addressing "diagnosis", "misdiagnosis", and whether or not "medical treatment" is necessary for sexual fetishes today, in 2011?  The 1950s are over and this section really should go. 184.19.131.61 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosis and medical treatment section? 

message: Please, please, please remove this link. Can't you see that this is a semi-porn site targeted to the fetishists?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.10.37 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the only evidence that there IS a smoking fetish is that sites like this one try to insert themselves here.  And even that could be a ploy by big tobacco.  Dunno what I can do to convince you guys that this fetish is real. Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pinkangelsmokes 

message: Her blog is not a reliable source for stating that the smell of smoke is a turn-on for men, for if it were, then women would also be turned on by men doing the same thing.  What makes smoking a turn-on for men is the woman, not the smoke, and even then, the turn-on sensation is merely situational.  When some straight men picture or see a woman smoking, it makes the smoke seem more pleasant to them; but if these same men picture or see a man doing it, then it isn't as stimulating.  Plus, it helps tremendously if the men find the smoking woman attractive.  Of course, there are also those men who aren't turned on by women smoking at all.  In fact, some men are even turned off by a woman smoking.
In addition, the author admits that she is a smoker herself, which means that her sense of smell isn't properly calibrated.  Those who often inhale first-hand smoke directly into their lungs will always find exhaled smoke more fragrant than the smoke that they're used to inhaling.  In fact, those who are used to the smell of first-hand smoke don't notice the smell of it like non-smokers do, so anything more fragrant by comparison will smell good, even sweet.  Also, those who hang around smokers all the time are so used to the strong sidestream smoke, that they also find the weaker exhaled smoke more fragrant by comparison.  But try doing an experiment with non-smokers who don't hang around smokers, and you'll most likely find that there isn't much difference between inhaled and uninhaled smoke.  Both are just as offensive and pungent, even though one smell is slightly weaker than the other.
Here's a link to the blog in question.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.108.115 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silka Winsome blog unreliable 

message: How do editors feel about including recent press reports about the tobacco industry's efforts to use social media influencers? Eg. https://www.marketing-interactive.com/major-tobacco-companies-found-to-be-secretly-using-influencers-to-advertise/ ("Netnografica conducted interviews with young social media influencers who were paid to promote cigarettes online to millions of followers without disclosing that they were engaged in paid advertising. Key findings from the investigation conclude that tobacco companies seek out young people who have significant numbers of followers online and pay them to post photos featuring Marlboro, Lucky Strike and other cigarette brands.") 
It seems this is at the root of public porn blogs like for example (I won't hyperlink to porn here but if editors want to check it out) a blog like marlbororedsperv (dot) tumblr.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.105.232 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of marketing & tobacco industry involvement 

message: IMO, this page does such a TERRIBLE job of explaining true capnolagnia that it is laughable, but I have NO interest in getting into an edit war Rsngfrce (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible info