Talk:Pregnancy fetishism

message: Please don't move the entire entry arbitrarily because you think "Maiesiophilia", "Maieusiophilia" or "Maeiusiophilia" or anything else is the right spelling. There is much debate as to the spelling of that word, so I suggest the article stay here, and anyone interested in moving it try debating it here. (Darien Shields 19:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your work so far seems to be good.  I can't believe there would be a problem with linking to sites because you'd be generating traffic for them (which I assume is what they want).--DarkSide6 07:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One person seemed worried that it might bring trolls who wanted to make fun of folk. That's happened before, but usually when links are placed on sites like "Something Awful". Anyway, I got presmission from the person primarilly involved (Darien Shields 05:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maiesiophilia 

message: See Maiesiophilia. I don't know whether there is supposed to be any difference between what both articles cover, but right now that one seems to be mostly redundant. Merge anyone? –Ashmodai 22:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant article? 

message: I've made Maiesiophilia a redirect to this article, we don't have multiple articles on the same topic on wikipedia.  I didn't bother merging the content, because it was entirely unsourced.  Feel free to go check the history and grab it if you want it here. --Xyzzyplugh 16:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirected Maiesiophilia here

message: Who conflates pregnant women with prepubescent children??
Also, I don’t remember the bus driver in “Rat Race” seeming turned on at all. —Wiki Wikardo 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe pedophilia related to pregnancy fetishism, the issue is on the female body is pregnant and physiological changes occur while she bears a child inside the womb. It's totally acceptable in western countries (some couples, married or cohabiting, and if their religious-moral views permit it) to continue sexual relations with a pregnant spouse/partner, provided by the doctor/physician if the woman has no medical problems or not in "high risk" pregnancy. The only obstacle is sexual positions for her and him to feel comforting, or if he's aroused by how she looks (esp. her big belly, weight gain included). I think more and more people in western countries aren't thrilled or shocked if a healthy pregnant woman wants to have sex.63.3.14.2 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah...the controversial scene was deleted, because the themes on sexual arousal was unsuitable in some regional and small markets (in the USA). Was "rat race" rated R or PG-13? That scene couldn't fit in some R-rated films ("x-rated" soft porn). It could be "offensive" to some audiences and probably not in a PG 13-rated film. Most DVD releases of movies have deleted scenes or extra footage included (directors' cut, British/Canadian versions, special insiders' look, etc.) and the DVD version Rat Race may had the bus driver/pregnant passenger scene. I never saw the movie or DVD... what's the movie Nine months has to do with pregnancy fetishism? 63.3.14.2 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why is someone taking down external links on topics related to maiesiophilia and pregnancy fetishism? I want them back...they are useful, liable and credited resources, for goodness sake, it talks about what the article is focused on. 
The web link below is from Wired News.com on web sites feature pictures of pregnant women (belly shots, part-nudes, childbirth close-ups) and the issues coming out of the chance of "pervert" men or women will stare at the pics, trade them to others in fetish clubs, and it made me question what are the limits of modesty, glorification (a byproduct of love-making or procreation inside a woman's body, vs. snapshots of women in pain/discomfort at labor and c-section scars/stitches?) and just plain weird sex to only disturb viewers or readers? 
It's important for privacy reasons and respect to the ladies, never just trade nude prego pics without prior consent or permission, chances are it'll end up back to the original source! And there are prego pic web sites ran or produced by pregnant women (or/and their husbands) admittedly into maiesiophilia,  gravidaphilia, exhibitionism and "wife-sharing" stories within the pregnancy fetish community. Here's the web link below (but no prego pics...Ok?) :-D  63.3.14.1 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrelated to pædophilia 

message: Please refer to the verification policy: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it.  Please note that the emphasis is in the original.  If there are reliable sources for any of the things that I've removed (and am about to re-remove) add them and there is no problem. - 152.91.9.144 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are sources to be found, then they need to be added at the time the material is added as opposed to some vauge later date.  Material without sources cannot be assured of being unbiased.  I will continue to remove unsourced material per policy. 152.91.9.144 01:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Leave it alone, please. I had to restore some of the deleted edits, you could had discussed it first on the talk page. I want to find real hard sources and the pregnancy fetish community might contributed to the entries. But, additions must conform to the wikipedia's strict criteria standards. I've left "citation needed" for two or 3 of them, they look authenatic and not entirely personal opinion, refer to  point on view on what's considered that way.+ Mike D 26 07:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok you're right. The clean up was needed, but the thing on "about the fetish" can't be totally inappropriate or broken wikipedia rules. I don't know any psychiatric magazine or web site can speak for the pregnancy fetishist mind either. What it's about is they are attracted or aroused by a woman, but while in her pregnancy, the belly is the center of interest. 
I'm not sure the media is responsible for generating a public consciousness in a sexual nature of a woman's body during pregnancy. I always thought it's up to her and the man she loves, but this is about an abnormal (or "unwanted") attraction by other men come up to her and try to sexually involve her. 
There's nothing morally wrong for a man to have a romantic feeling for a woman if she's pregnant (by another man, of course and she may left a bad marriage or not), but the focus on hidden pregnancy fetishism as a result of  political correct attitudes to "feel pity" or try to "respect" women who gained weight. 
Now I find it an unsourced statement (or there wasn't verification) like the media can warp other people's minds on what's sexy about pregnancy, but nevertheless it's a beautiful thing to happen for any woman...and her lover involved in the procreation process. +Mike D 26 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * Leaving aside the value judgements applied in the above, the policy on verification does not require that material that may "look authenatic." [sic]  It's dead easy: Find sources or the material must be removed.  Here is a link to the version of the page that contains all the unsourced material, if someone wants to find sources for the statements contained therein and add the material in with reliable sources then do so.  Barring that, I'm going to continue to remove material that is unsourced or biased. 152.91.9.144 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I know there was lots of pregnant fetish artwork based on popular animated toons on TV, movies, comics & video games. Fans drawn images of young adult females from Totally spies, teen titans, final fantasy, inuyasha, disney, scooby doo, tiny toons, street fighter, mortal kombat, south park & the simpsons are popular. The web sites have hundreds of images of female characters shown pregnant, story plots contain how they are involved in sexual/romantic affairs with male/female characters, stuff like that. I seen one Totally Spies sketch: alex, sam and clover learned they test positive, then find the 3 girls had a graduation orgy, and start to seek attractive bachelors for sex. I won't get into detail or on topics I shouldn't discuss, but fan fiction and prego fetish fantasies got rolled into one, an interest to wish that got on TV.63.3.14.2 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced 

message: Rem off-topic discussion to User talk:63.3.14.129/pregnant Anchoress 11:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to break it to you, but one cannot alter nor remove instincts by education. Do you realize that being a pregnancy fetishist is no more a choice than being a homosexual or a heterosexual is? Hell, anyone who gawks at computer-enhanced photos him/herself might find their hobby quite silly... but what can you do about it? It's not like there's a switch in the back of your head, controlling your sexual orientation. 81.175.227.220 (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Education" to fight erotic feelings? How illogical is that? --2A02:2454:9861:8700:46D:BF50:949F:C131 (talk)^  —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  You're into pregnant women? here are facts 

message: I have just removed all of the seriously non-neutral and unsourced essay material from this article.  It read like someone trying to introduce others to their obsession rather than an encyclopedic discussion of the subject matter.  Huge portions were full of WP:WEASEL words and described the online community more than the actual fetish.  There is plenty of psych and other examination of this fetish from a more analytical and less anecdotal perspective and the former is what the article needs to be based upon.  ju66l3r 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPOV]] & [[WP:OR]] 

message: I have removed "However, it is not usually connected to pædophilia (despite the apparently-common assumption)." because it's completely unsourced. Whether or not Pregnancy fetishism is connected to paedophilia definitely needs a reliable source, as does the fact that it is an "apparently-common assumption". Otherwise it is original research. --BelovedFreak 19:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  paedophilia again 

message: Okay, Here's what I'd like to do. This article is in very bad state, both the former current article [], and the one that, assuming it hasn't been reverted by the time you read this, is currently up. I admit that. However, I'm hoping to use this current article (the one with Moore) to build up an article that is ultimately a good article. However, I am not able to devote hundreds of man hours during the week, although I am free on the weekends, for the most part. 
Here is the current problems with the current version (Moore):
*First, OR, that's bad, very bad, But it shouldn't be removed out right all together; try to find citations first, and, if not, remove the statements then we can work from there. However, I ask that editors try to leave it in as long as possible, it will make editing th article easier. 
*The introduction is really, really long, it needs to be broken into the introduction and a section better explaining it. 
*The BS controversy, it seems rather bad, it should probably be reformatted into a section discussing it in popular culture, which would allow us to merge the trivia into a more useful section 
*Further more, the section in question seems rather messed up, and starts talking about the Venus figurines and religion, all of which can be cut up, moved to it's own sections, and such.
Once we have that done, it should be easy to look over the article and fix it to better suit Wikipedia's standards, but this isn't going to happen all at once. I really don't want to spend the next month or so in an revert war over differing opinions on which version is better. Well, here's the fact, both the Moore article and the One liner are pretty crappy articles, but at least the Moore one has more information that can be worked with. 
I know we can work together on this an produce an excellent article. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for no editting recently, I've been having computer problems--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Johnuniq did an edit  that is impolite to me!!! Does anyone explain why the external links are un-encyclopedic??? Especially for the THIRD link... " (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the first two were wikipedia mirrors, so it's pointless to link to those. The third one is probably more suitable as a reference. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, please see WP:ELNO. There are probably hundreds (thousands?) of web sites that could be related to this article. WP is not a place to list links. Sorry if you felt it impolite, but it's not; we all get reverted here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's try this again. 

message: The appearance of a pregnant (and nude) Demi Moore on the cover of Vanity Fair in 1991 should replace the  embryonic example of Britney Spears; the cover was a watershed in terms of celebrity, exhibitionism and commodification. Redblueball (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Popular culture, the citation for House MD seems to have changed, does anyone know a good site that gives good summaries on shows? (I have watched the episode in question and it does come up, but my word isn't a citation :P)--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop culture references

message: The image :Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG

message: How do you have an article on Pregnancy Fetishism and delete the one link to an active Pregnancy Fetish community site? It's not even a pay site, it's literally the only organized community for this fetish on the site.
Please replace The Impregnation's website back in the external links.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.155.20 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained on your Talk page, the link is counter to Item #10 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, part of Wikipedia's guideline concerning external links. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I have found that there was a psychology segment around "erotic humiliation" and not around this topic. I want a psychology section on this topic because I came to this page thinking "why would anyone actually get aroused by this?" so I thought this would be helpful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7672:BE00:9816:F997:EB3D:8EE6 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wishing for a Psychology section on this 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pregnancy fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702173015/http://www.acme-journal.org/vol5/RLo.pdf to http://www.acme-journal.org/vol5/RLo.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am surprised that no one seems to bother about the etymology of the term "maiesiophilia", and it's not mentioned in the article at all. I was hoping to get information on that here - can anyone contribute to that? --2A02:2454:9861:8700:46D:BF50:949F:C131 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology