Talk:Vorarephilia/Archive 1

message: Support:
# Meekohi 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been thinking about doing that as well and would support you merging them. Please be careful in the rewrite to source any material you add. Of course a simple declaratory stub can usually get away without alot of sources but if you start to get into more descriptive assertions about the philia and it's community then sources will be a must. As for the Aryron wiki, I don't believe that is acceptable as a source. You should reviewe the reliable sources guildline for more specifics. If you want/need any help go ahead and drop me a line at my talk page. NeoFreak 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support the merge as per above.  I've placed merge tags on both articles. Robotman1974 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the articles should be merged finally too.  I was actually bout to do this, but I don't know enough about the topic to do much more than a simple cut and paste job.  I support the ideas you expressed above regarding the move. Robotman1974 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the merge but I have removed all the unsourced conjecture, original research or assertions that are not verified by reliable sources. NeoFreak 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is, this subject has no reliable sources by publishing standards, and probably won't be any. Looks like this page is going to be a stub for a while yet. Animowolf 00:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: This has been removed:
"-  	A male version of this fetish, known as cock vore, referring to a person's desire to enter a male body through the urethra, has developed along side it (and may have derived from it), though it is less common than its sister fetish and is usually played alongside hypertrophia/hyperphallia in sexual role-play. It is often associated with (though not exclusive to) the furry fandom, specifically its erotic subgenre yiff.  	 
			
- 	How this fetish came about is unknown, although it may have links to urethral sounding, a urological medical practice that has been incorporated into the fetish of cock and ball torture. Considering how small the urethra is compared to the size of a normal human body, this fetish is usually role-played alongside hyperphallia. Though most sessions end similar to unbirth, in which the character is curled up securely and comfortably within the stomach area of their partner, some characters are forced into their partner's testicles, in which their body is broken down through unknown means and transformed into semen used to fuel their partner's own orgasm."
I believe that I could remove what this person put up under the same reasoning they use--this doesn't make sense to me and my thoughts on what vore is, so it's gone. What does everyone else think? This is why we have to cite our sources, so that people can't take down anything and put up anything else under the guise of "I know what I'm talking about."
But what do you people think? What's central and important to the Vore article? Lotusduck 04:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody deleted Cock Vore 

message: I've found two articles that aren't about vore, but do mention it, although the definitions aren't 100% accurate.
71.158.179.102 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles mentioning vore

message: On the off chance the entry for Vorarephilia is not deleted, should it be associated with Paraphilia?  According to the definition of Paraphilia ( http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/paraphilia.html ), it is:
"...a condition in which a person's sexual arousal and gratification depend on fantasizing about and engaging in sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme."
While vorarephilia does result in sexual arousal, it does not require the engaging in any manner of sexual behavior or activity.  I believe this is one of the things that makes vorarephilia so confusing to many people; especially those who are not vorarephiles themselves.  The intense desire to eat or be eaten does not require sexual interaction, as evidenced by those who wish to be eaten by animals, but have no physical attraction to that animal.  Or those who enjoy the idea of being eaten by inanimate objects, such as furniture or machines.
Perhaps as vorarephilia becomes more widely recognized, real research will be done and a better understanding of how to classify it will be discovered. Amberax 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as sexology and psychological studies would be concerned, vorarephilia would most certainly fit as a paraphilia. Certainly, the paraphilia page seems to specify this. The term "paraphilia" in most psychological/sexological research is used primarily as an umbrella term to describe atypical sexual behaviour, which vorarephilia most certainly would be, compared to the general populace. Typically, arousal is enough to be counted as a paraphilia, as noted in the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criterion for paedophilia - arousal + distress is sufficient for clinical diagnosis, participating in the act is not required. -- Kirby1024 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Unsuitable how? As for the page being expanded because it is a "definitive source" wikipedia does not condone original research and can only use information that is already published by a reliable source. NeoFreak 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Vorarephilia really a Paraphilia? 

message: In John Steinbeck's story, "The Snake", a woman visits a scientist's laboratory and asks to buy a rattlesnake, and to watch while it swallows a rat whole. She seems to participate in the ingestion, following the snake's movements with her face. Vorarephilia? We know that the scientist is based on Steinbeck's friend Ed Ricketts, who may once have had a visit of this kind. Caesarc 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, no. In order for something to be a source for our definition of vorarephilia it must use that word, otherwise we are participating in original research. Secondly, that makes no sense. This page is for a sexual fantasy. There are probably quite a lot of literary passages where someone watches someone or something eat. Lotusduck 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  literary reference 

message: Primary literary  or other media sources are sufficient to document a name for a type of behavior,and to document that this behavior is something which people either do or fantasize about. They by themsselves justify an article if the behavior is worth the description.  For behavior with no established name but that nonetheless deserves discussion, we can use the most likely name constructed parallel to other such behaviors; if the ultimate name should change, the articles can be edited accordingly.   DGG 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standards of documentation=

message: I propose for the following changes.  #1 The spelling; Voraphillia has been just as commonly used, if not more than Vorarephillia.  #2 Vore in it self is not a fetish, its an act.  To be more precise, its the act of swallowing someone or something, or being consumed or swallowed by someone or something whole.  This act is recognized and regarded as a fetish only by those that create and, or observe the act specifically for sexual gratification.  Not every vore act is designed, or viewed for fetish purposes, therefore Vore and Voraphillia should not be classified together, but should instead have there own pages.
   My final proposal is to add the other available mediums that safely display vore.  Currently there is no mention of the movie shorts and videos comprised of full size props with live actresses & Actors.
Reddmann 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself and of course most people viewing the article are not experts. We must act in good faith, but we must also edit the article. Your assertions are not uncontroversial and not obviously true, so I think that you should add what you are talking about only when you can attribute to a published article or book that says what you have just said. Lotusduck 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to update the information provided for "Vore" 

message: There are very few, if any, resources available for one to look up & research vore.  This means that others that do not understand will depend on your information provided here to get an understanding.  For you to label Vore along with its fetish counterpart "Voreraphillia", would be the same as directing all inquiries of feet to "Footfetish"; individuals who love blood and gory movies would be automatically labeled "Masochist, or saddist".  They may not like snuff films, but love Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street.  Should we then label magazines showing off feet for pedicure products and sandals as Fetish publications?  movies involving kidnappings and hostages fall under "Bondage"?  The meaning of Vore is no different.  example, how about the national geographics, and Animal Planet episodes depicting a snake eating a rabbit whole? Does this mean that PBS, the Learning Channel & educational television condone the broadcasting of TV shows to Jerk off to?  YouTube is probably the most mainstream outlet currently depicting all facids of vore.  If you look it up there, you'll see episodes of the muppet show where Ms. Piggy was eaten by an alien, scenes from cartoons, video games, children's movies & Books, even commercials.  Do you really think these organizations would intentionally create childrens material designed for people to masterbate to while watching?  Of course not.  This factor alone should be concrete enough evidence to show that vore in itself is NOT A FETISH. Classifying these commonly accepted and harmless acts as Fetish will implicate all vore material as sexually deviant.  Altering the perception of vore falsely will ultimately sway public opinion of any works related as inappropriate, thus causing the unecessary CENSURING of good entertaining material.  For the record, I do realize that there are many depictions of vore that are truely sexually driven in nature and fetish intended, just as there are perversions of about anything you could think of, from arm pit fetishes to boot licking.  These, however, do NOT represent the general meaning of vore.  I strongly feel that the definition of Vore remains as the process of devouring something whole, and nothing more. This has always been its meaning.  Voraphilliacs use the term Vore to describe what turns them on.  The way one fetishist may say "I'm in to FEET", a voraphilliac may say "I'm in to Vore".  Vore isn't the fetish.  the Fetish lies in the person that appreciates the vore act for sexual gratification.  Reddmann 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While most of the time I'd just say "Hey, no sources? Too bad." In this case though we don't have the a reliable source to back up the fetish being refered to as just Vore, although I'm sure some do. It also seems to be more of a semantic or grammatical issue than an issue with the accuracy of terms. I've removed it. NeoFreak 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vore is NOT the fetish (Voreraphilia) 

message: I checked here on one occassion (maybe about 3 or 4 days ago), and Vore had its own definition page.  The info was quite accurate.  It basically described Vore as meaning to take in/eat or swallow something whole, and discussed the use of the word as a suffix to describe what an animal may eat(herbivore, carnivore, omnivore).  It also explained that the word originates from the word Vorare, which means to devour something.  This is the most accurate, and appropriate description/depiction regarding the purpose of this word.  I propose for that to be the the information available to a Vore search, instead of directing someone to the fetish counterpart (vorarephilia). Reddmann 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, except that you are talking about a disambiguation page. I'll go make it, actually.Lotusduck 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Vore to have an independent definition thread 

message: whoever removed the content is a dumbass, its a flipping WORD!
definging and explaining a word dosent need a source other than a dictionary, since its slang you wont really find it in an actual dictionary, instead you must use the internets, and wikipedia rules needs revamped or ignored if they think the international hub of all that is vore dosent even have an accurate description of the coined term, so whoever is screwing with this article  #@42@! off, your ruining wikipedia.
you want a source? heres your fricken source
"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. This page is a guideline(sic), not a policy, and is mandatory only insofar as it repeats material from policy pages." - wikipedia:rs article.
:Yes, well, if you want to be a rules lawyer, WP:V (which is a policy) reads:
::This page in a nutshell:
::* Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
::* Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
::* The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.
:It is regrettable if the description we provide is incomplete or inaccurate. If you feel that there are not sufficient sources to to write an accurate article, you may wish to nominate it for deletion. I prefer to try to present whichever information we have available, assuming that is possible while maintaining a reasonably neutral article, but this is perhaps an instance where my tendency to inclusionism isn't helpful to the encyclopedia.
:Therefore, please do find sources so that we may write a better article, or, if you feel that it is impossible, you may choose to nominate it for deletion. Either of these are healthy ways to improve Wikipedia. What is not healthy, though, is attacking other editors as you've done above. None of us wants to ruin Wikipedia, although many of us have different ideas about what sort of things might ruin or improve it. Please keep that in mind in the future. --Sopoforic 11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  person who lost the content

message: Since the devouring scene is described as very sexually involved, I am okay with it, however I am wary of collecting things and defining them as vorarephilia that are not otherwise documented as such. We are on the cusp, if not in the throes of, original research.Lotusduck 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read the passage in question (I loath Piers Anthony) but I'm inclined to agree with you. Still with a article that is pretty much just a dicdef thanks to the inability to verify anything else I'm rather hesitant to be adding an "examples" section. NeoFreak 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature 

message: I did not know what a "vore" is and tried to look it up here, and must say that is the most pathetic wimpish article I have seen in Wp, 100 % pc, 99 % having been removed. What happened to "be bold"? What an incentive to the writers. What a service to the readers. Ekem 01:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being bold does not mean "add bad or unattributable material". There is not enough attributable material here to support a larger article. Attempts to merge and or deleted the article have been resisted by the Vore community. Maybe you could help us in finding some reliable sources? NeoFreak 01:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point, but simply as a reader who does not know what a "vore" is, I find that this article provides just about no service. Can we not recast the article ackowledging that apparently current reliable sources are difficult to come by, and placing requests for citations into the text where appropriate? My point is simple, and I am writing as a reader who wants to know more. Isn't it preferable to have information that is given with a caveat than to have nothing? Ekem 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What myself and a couple others have done here is create a basic explanation of what "Vore" is. What we have here is what we can verify. If a reader wants to learn more about the community beyond what can be attributed then we have provided external links to the community itself. If you have any ideas on how to make the article better without adding unattributable material in the hope that someone finds sources I'd really like to hear about it. Hit me up here or on my talk page. NeoFreak 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 1.) I'm am not nor is anyone else who has commented here in some time an admin. 2.) Please don't come in here and start to insult people and make ridiculous assertions like :if five websites agree on something it's true". NeoFreak 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He kinda has a point though: if the rest of the Internet has a consensus on what something is, and no conflicting views exist (reliable or otherwise), shouldn’t Wikipedia reflect that? If such is the case, then reliable sources would follow. —Frungi 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We would hope that reliable sources would follow but they don't here, as is often the case with neologisms. This is one of the biggest reasons why articles on neologisms are discouraged, they do not support differing views or reliable sources because they are new terms, often self-identifing and seldom support reliable sources. "Vorarephilia" is not a real medical term, it's made up by the people that perscribe to the concept. If you look through the message boards and various websites you will actually find that there is much disagreement and confusion over the definition of the term within the self-declared "vore community" itself. NeoFreak 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, the Article could stand to be cleaned a bit; maybe, in so many words, perform a 'Liposuction' and take a bit of the unneeded fat off. However, Vore is kept, and therefore, the different types and categories of vore is as well. As long as it doesn't stray beyond that, then it should be fine to keep a list of the different types of vore, along with small-medium descriptions. Jwguy 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's rich. I don't want to offend but neither I nor wikipedia cares what you think about Vorarephilia because it's original research. The material you are adding does not meet the requirements of what wikipedia accepts. I've already left you one warning on you're talk page. Please take a look at WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:RS. Also, the accusations you are throwing around are rather inappropriate. As a final note please sign your talk page comments with 4 tildes (~) NeoFreak 19:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pathetic

message: News article with some substance on voraphilia. 
http://www.thewavemag.com/pagegen.php?articleid=22026&pagename=article
Quell the argument, or does it not count still?
(Moved by Sopoforic from the article page)
:This does appear to be a usable source; unfortunately, there doesn't really seem to be anything in it that isn't already in the article, except perhaps a claim that "Imagining digestion at the very end may come into play, but it's painless in the vore niche." I suppose I can add in a note to that effect, since I did promise to add any new material that was found. --Sopoforic 00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, of course; thus my use of the word 'claim' above. I tried to hedge a bit by saying 'may' when I added it, but it's not ideal. The problem is that it won't be obvious to anyone unfamiliar with vorarephilia that painless digestion is even an option, so having some mention of it is probably better than no mention. Improvements to my wording are welcome. --Sopoforic 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magazine article from 194.125.98.74 

message: all this article — are complete bullshit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.192.55.2 (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think, what 

message: And it is completly terrible. It is very redundant, choppy, poorly written, has terrible grammar, and uses Urbandictionary as a source. Something needs to be done.73.185.121.192 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was referring to this revision, actually. Someone had inserted a lot of unreferenced stuff, and a link to urban dictionary also. The criticism was well-founded, although the problems were only a couple of days old--the insertion of material slipped past me until that message. I probably should have left a note here that I'd corrected the problems. Mea culpa. --Sopoforic 00:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So I'm reading this article 

message: I have stumbled across this article via black plague and have never heard of this fetishism word Vorarephilia before! To be honest its cannabilsm but you get sexual pleasure from it. I have read the comments made and it concerns me the amount of control one person has taken up on this, even when there is an admission this is a new thing. 
The state of the article in its present state is no more than a dictionary definition - as such if its staying like that I think there could be grounds for it to be deleted or merged into the main cannibalism article --PrincessBrat 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In cannibalism, the victim is dead, and often cooked. (There are also some who get sexual pleasure from that, for some reason.) In vore, the victim is whole and alive, as the article says, and possibly of a different species.Which one person are you talking about? One who’s limiting the article on the grounds that no consensus exists for definitions? Or one who insists on not letting it be deleted? —Frungi 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should use an HTML redirect (With a "you are leaving Wikipedia, content may be unreliable" prompt) to the WikiFur article on Vorarephilia. If not, you should just let some actual vorarephiles edit this article to death until they agree on something. If you don't agree with that... the 250,000 useless large (as in "Culturally significant phrases from The Simpsons") articles should be deleted, or reduced to microstubs or dicdefs due to their irrelevance. Vorarephilia is one of the 1,400,000 relevant articles on WP which should be expanded. Canada-kawaii 01:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Did I stagnate the conversation? 142.179.121.11 13:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article destroyed