Talk:Robot fetishism

message: So just so as we know, external links must not be advertisements, and generally should be newspaper articles or stuff like that. Lotusduck 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also 

message: Someone slapped a "merge with statuephilia, see discussion" tag on the article, but there's no discussion of it here. So I removed it. Robots and mannequins are clearly not the same thing anyway, especially to these fetishists. wikipediatrix 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I've added much to this page, but unfortunately there are no sources I know of to site that exist off the web.  All of the information I have added comes from my knowledge and experience as a member of the ASFR community, and from indepth discussions with fellow members at the Fembot Central message board.
Robotman1974 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edit

message: I can't see what the opinion "This phase was widely regarded as his worst." has to do with the article. It sounds like POV to me, so I've removed it. Also, I can't seem to find any reference to "Bill Page" the fetish artist on either Wikipedia or Google. Can someone provide an example for verification? If he is indeed popular, there should be a Wikipedia article or stub concerning him. Robotman1974 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Page

message: I saw that 2 external links were removed.  I don't know much about sexrobot.com, so I have no issues with that being out.  However, the link to SexTV is to an episode of a Canadian documentary television series.  I think the information presented in the clip on that website is important information regarding this article.  I've added the link again. Robotman1974 08:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links removed

message: *Oppose — Aside from the art appealing to some robot fetishists, the articles have little to do with one another.  Merge instead into Hajime Sorayama. Robotman1974 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oppose -- Good point. My original intent was that the article "Sexy robot" seemed to be a section of another article, not an entire article by itself. I'll change the tags to merge into Hajime Sorayama. 71.112.117.93 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Sexy robot]] into [[Robot fetishism]]

message: I've just removed most of the revisions that were made to this article on June 14.  The edit summaries here, here,  here, here, here and here explain my reasoning for this.  The most drastic change was to the "Pop culture" section.  As has been discussed above, this section should contain only examples of a fetish for robots, not examples of sexual relationships with robots.  Some of what was removed were things known and loved by the ASFR community, but are not depictions of a fetish for robots.  In keeping with the guidelines on trivia (see WP:TRIVIA), the list should be getting shorter and eventually vanish, not be expanded. 66.222.227.42 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed more entries from the trivia section.  The difference can be seen here.  Again, these entries showed only human/robot sexual relationships and not specifically instances of a robot fetish. 66.222.227.42 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major revisions

message: This is the second time that someone has suggested a merge with statue fetishism, but the two subjects are completely different and I'd be strongly against such a merger. Most robot fetishists, I'm sure, would not be attracted by statues, the major factor of independent or controllable movement being an important feature of robot fetishism. Far better to have the articles as they are at the moment, stating that although there are similarities between the two fetishes, they are different enough to be regarded as separate philias. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to the article - "Robot fetishism is a sexual fetish for robots... Robot fetishism can be viewed as a form of erotic anthropomorphism", but, the sources do not refer to this phrase or concept. Why is this? Because the phrase does not belong in an anthropological context, or in the contexts of clinical psychology, and instead has its own meaning. So, what does it mean - what is the context? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I can answer your question.  The statement "Robot fetishism is a sexual fetish for robots" is about as clear and plain as it gets.  It means precisely what it says. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's a difficult question - because we are without sources, and thus the question is being answered with the rights of an editor's personal opinion, not fact, and therefore constitutes original research. Furthermore; the clarity and plain-ness of the meaning of "Robot fetish" explains little except an ability to use English according to one's beliefs. Without sources, the article has the context of a group of robot enthusiasts developing a fan page and misunderstanding the meaning of fetishism.. or at least cannot explain themselves.. which begs the question of how they know they're describing a fetish? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, a proposed merger with agalmatophilia 

message: I see no justification for the Fansite tag that has been placed in the article.  Certainly, no explanation has yet been given for it.  If no good reason for the tag is given, I will remove it.  If there is anything in the article that could remotely be considered fancruft, then that can easily be removed.  This is not a long article.  I have just removed some of the "pop culture" references myself, and I wouldn't have a problem with that entire section being removed. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the tag because the section is superficial. It reads like a list of guestimates and lifestyle preferences being shared between friends. "Many people..", "some people", "A recent informal survey of ASFR community members", "some ASFRians do not wish to use synthetic partners at all". The article reveals very little - except opinion and descriptions of acceptable action to the ASFR community. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Almost all of those statements are sourced, and to me they appear to be exactly the kind of information one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article on a topic such as this.  I take issue with the placement of a "fansite" tag mainly because it is inappropriate for an article with this type of subject matter.  The topic of the article, a fetish for robots, is not fictional.  I can see where there might be some confusion as some of the objects of this fetish are fictional.  That being said, the fetish itself is not fiction.  Therefore to suggest (as I think has been suggested above) that "real-world" context needs to be demonstrated is rather odd and off the mark, to say the least. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements are not sourced for "fetishism", fetishes or "Robotfetishism" - the sources describe a "lifestyle choice" about technosexuality by robot enthusiasts and TV hacks. I don't know where you are getting your source about fetishism. Care to provide one? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I honestly don't know what you are talking about now.  It almost looks like you have a problem with the article's title.  If that's the case, you're going about it in a strange way.  Sources are provided.  They are in the article.  I don't know what else to say. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changing the title would be an appropriate move. If you could also point to the source that declares or describes "Robot Fetishism", I will consider not deleting the page/article. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fansite tag

message: The edits made by myself and an editor at 194.112.32.101 (presumably also Redblueball) are at odds.  I can not see how the article's sources back up the changes being made, and I see a lot of original research and speculation going into the article as well.  Also, I can't quite decipher much of what has been posted by that user on this talk page. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: This link appears to send the user to the main page, and yields no results in a search... "There were no matches for "ASFR", whether in the Vamp subsection or anywhere else in this site. Please try again."
Has the entry been moved, deleted.. ? Redblueball (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link appears to be dead, and has been removed. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, i saw it... Wow... As usual, i learnt something on Wikipedia, but for once, i don't feel smarter now... Arikel (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken external link to "ASFR entry on sexuality.org" ?

message: It's obviously an acronym but the article makes no mention of it's meaning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.140.6 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is ASFR? 

message: Can this artist be included in the "See also" section? Wasn't sure if it's appropriate or not. I discovered him from the cover of the Aerosmith album, Just Push Play. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hajime Sorayama]] 

message: *Check for notability
*Check refs
*Check content
*check NPOV
*keep an eye
*reassess after work completed
Chaosdruid (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems pretty well referenced now, and I tweaked the minor neutrality problems I found. -- Beland (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Attention needed

message: I'm sure it felt appropriate at the time, when alt.sex.fetish.robots was the only place you could find any content or discussion on robot fetishism, but two decades later using you can barely find much more in relation to robot fetishism using that acronym, other than this article, and most certainly the community must have dispersed into separate scattered communities, some having arisen independently of alt.sex.fetish.robots, as you can still find robot erotica without the ASFR tag attached.
Yes, this is all more on the side of personal research and experience than properly sourced references, but the point still stands: The ASFR community and the robot fetishist community are no longer the same, but rather one has become a shrinking subset of the other. Terms such as "ASFR art" and similar statements should be reprhased to something along the lines of "robot fetish art", though at times it's hard to tell at a glance which statements have proven to be specific to the ASFR community and which apply to robot fetishism as a whole. 94.228.4.251 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive focus on the ASFR community's takes on the fetish