Talk:Breast expansion fetishism

message: Giantism as defined by Wikipedia is not the “fetish” that is often (loosely) associated with BE.  It should be macrophilia, or more specifically, giantess fetish.
: My above post was made at a different time and was not intended to appear connected to the post that followed it.  To clarify, the term giantism needed to be removed because it’s unrelated, so I did remove it.  Therefore this is ironic considering some of the flippant remarks lower on the page.  It is sad that an attempt to clarify something on an article’s talk page would be used as nothing more than fuel to further harass its editors. 64.11.244.251 07:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Giantism?

message: I’m astounded that someone [216.107.3 & Babecorp one and the same?] who obviously doesn’t know what BE is, would just blank most of the article and try to concoct one of his own.  Not only does it grow more nonsensical with his every edit, it has less and less to do with BE fetishism.  He/she did the same to the breast fetishism article – just erased a HUGE amount of content without giving any reason!  (It is in light of the mess this BE article has become that I’m going to ignore  aka Paul Beardsell's response to it: vandalism.)  Actually the original BE entry (which I didn’t write) was a heck of a lot more informative than the fractured nonsense this article is currently.  And what’s the point in trying to improve this if Babecorp is just going to erase it every time? 64.11.244.35 14:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Beardsell's vandalism

message: The title of the article is "breast expansion fetish".  It is not "breast giantism".  Any improvement can not be vandalism.  That someone else might have destroyed a good article does not make edits which I do which improve the grammar, the wording into vandalism.  Even if the article remains ridiculous.  Paul Beardsell 16:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t recall stating that this is my fetish.  (It isn’t as a matter of fact.)  But more interestingly you’re implying people with this fetish are and should be “ashamed.”  You even drove the point home further when you went to the trouble of going back and italicizing "extraordinary" and “ashamed” in a retaliatory edit making your meaning all too clear (as if there was ever any doubt).  Or are you implying that anyone that makes an effort to improve the article should be “ashamed” as well? 64.11.244.41 19:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism and fetishism and giantism 

message: Everyone will continue to assume this page is about anything and everything until somone finds a source for the term 'breast expansion fetish', or someone finds a source on the subject and renames the page under that terminology, or somebody deletes this page.
I doubt that there's really that documentable a connection between Gigantism,erotica envolving the 50 foot woman and breast implants. I guess what I'm saying is: Prove me wrong. Uh, with sources! Lotusduck 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there are several websites that cater to the fetish doesn't nessasarily validate it, but let's assume it does. Then would you reference MyFreeImplants.com as a source for real-world breast expansion, and sites like The Breast Expansion Archive as a source for all types of BE? I've tried looking for other sources, but I just get copies of wikipedia articles, and a mention of it in this blog: Sex Organs Sprout Everywhere Disavian 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verify 

message: Parts of this article also need to be defluffed against weasel words such as "many fetishists are morphers".  There is likely no way to reference that as a fact and then there is the definition of what "many" means.  These sections need to be redrafted to avoid this syntactical problem...like "Morphing is one way BE fetishists generate new media...". ju66l3r 04:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was busy with some other work, but I may be the one to come back and deal with this issue.  ju66l3r 21:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WEASEL]] words

message: Okay, this page is not attributed, and there's been a tag on it for at least two months. Lets nominate it for deletion! I have no specific reason to believe that it will ever comply with policy and get a referenced source. Lotusduck 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion! 

message: It is totally in order for any editor who cannot get access to material cited to request the guy who put it in to furnish a transcription, because we aren't supposed to add material we know only by title. So, here goes what I think a fair use excerpt: (I can email the whole thing on request, but I can't post it all here - some part might be inserted in the article, but not tonight)--or the whole thing moved to a subpage of the talk page if too long.) (btw, Proquest Newspapers is just a convenience, they should also be findable  in Lexis or Dialog or any other source which has that newspaper) 
*Chicago Tribune: (Kimberly Carey , Breast Enlargement Fantasty a Big Burden to Bear Chicago Tribune  6  May 25, 1997
"Today I've tuned in during the middle of a conversation between my favorite morning show host and a gentleman who claims he can temporarily enlarge a woman's breasts through hypnosis. I learn that the enhancements are safe, painless, last only three days, and can add approximately 4 inches to your bustline by increasing blood flow to that area of the body. Or you can listen to this guy's tape series and permanently enlarge your breasts in just one month.
For some reason, which perhaps I need a therapist to figure out, I'm intrigued. The deejay says he'll take the first 20 female callers who want to come to the studio the next morning to participate in a "group enhancement."
... I hang up the phone and wonder what the heck I'm going to do with temporarily enlarged breasts. 
"Does your husband want you to do this?" she asks, assuming that I am heroically trying to fulfill a sexual fantasy of the man I love. I assure her that is not the case and relay the earlier conversation with my spouse. ...
"What if they don't shrink back to their normal size?" [a friend] adds, skeptically. This is a troubling thought that I had not considered. I suddenly have visions of oversized shirts, backaches and bras the size of a horse harness.
*LA Times: (Chris Lee. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 26, 2004. p. E.8)
 Abstract (entire abstract is fair use) "When [Tony Gardner] stopped laughing, he took the job on "A Dirty Shame," the raunch-friendly director's NC-17-rated sex farce that came out on Friday. The prosthetic designer's primary directive: Transform the gamine [Blair] into an exhibitionistic exotic dancer whose stage name, Ursula Udders, bespeaks her monumental physique. "[John Waters] said he wanted to get these as large as we can -- but not just be boobs on legs," Gardner says.
The construction of such breasts involved a higher degree of technical expertise than anyone had imagined. Six pairs were constructed out of materials such as foam latex, urethane rubber and balloon rubber, while the custom latex breasts used for Blair's nude scenes required a lengthy application process that would begin on her shooting days at 4 a.m. Other nonprosthetic "stunt breasts" functioned like bustiers, allowing the actress to slip them on and off easily -- even if they resulted in some unusual side effects. "She couldn't see her feet, couldn't tie her shoes," says Gardner, 40. "She couldn't put on a bathrobe or cross her arms in front of her face"
*J Medical Ethics (Fair use abstract from pubmed) I consider this a general reference on the theme of the article, not a ref to illustrate any particular point. I cannot see how any objections raised apply to this. It is good to have one scholarly article among all the newspapers. 
"Facelifts, tummy tucks and breast enlargements are no longer the privilege of the rich and the famous. Any woman can have all these and many more cosmetic surgical treatments, and an increasing number of women do. Are they having cosmetic surgery because they are duped by a male-dominated beauty system, or do they genuinely choose these operations themselves? Feminists (and others) give diametrically opposed answers to this question. At the heart of the controversy, or so I claim in this article, lies a conceptual problem about free choice; therefore, the only thing that can settle it is a conceptual analysis of "freedom". After having briefly outlined the views of both sides of the debate, I offer such an analysis."
DGG 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: here are the key paragraphs

message: Some of the external links on this page take me to some "ProQuest Login" thingy. Anyone want to fix that, 'cause I can't! :( 4.249.156.227 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the Proquest part is for convenience fort hose who can get there; many large libraries have access. The originally published source is also given--it will usually be the print. Copies are generally available through interlibrary loan from any library. 09:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh...what? 

message: Keeping in mind I'm fairly new to this, as well as the fact that the use of such terminology as a "Disorder" in reference a fetish is more or less a matter of personal opinion (Note that there is little proof that a Breast Expansion Fetish is truly a hindrance, as well as there likely being a number of people who share such a fetish who would adhere to this fact.). This also tends to give the wrong message, implying it is some form of mental disability or that it indicates that something is "wrong" with a person who has this fetish, which is not a good way to inform people of this fetish, or of fetishes in general.
Also, I might add, that the stimulae for the breast expansion fetish are not necessarily relied upon. In fact, as I have myself seen, very few people must rely solely on breast expansion stimulae for sexual stimulation.
I might also note that only this page and the Breast Fetish page even reference fetishes as being "disorders", whereas most other fetish and paraphilia pages do not.
I thought I'd bring this up here, first, as it is a source that is cited for that particular sentence.
Thesillyshmo 08:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sexual fetishes" refer to psychological conditions according to the DSM-IV and "World Health Organization" (it also has some anthropological gravitas, particularly in the culture of the USA). For anybody who wishes to label themselves in possession of a clinical condition regardless of reputable opinion - it is fine by me, but wikipedia is not the place for these assertions. I agree that there are problems among academics in defining the "fetish" concept in their journals/institutions but again, wikipedia does not provide a space for original research in order to influence or refute these debates - We are here to impart knowledge, not opinion.194.112.32.101 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a second glance- I see what you mean about severity. It is true that the 'WHO' mention the level of degrees of a 'sexual fetish' disorder is changeable, and is not always severe (so I've edited the article accordingly). But as I implied earlier- the disorder remains in the literature even though some BE Fetishists may claim their independence from clinical practise and assert their collective state of well-being. 194.112.32.101 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "Disorder"