Talk:Breast expansion fetishism

Giantism?

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)

Paul Beardsell's vandalism

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 Psb777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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)

Vandalism and fetishism and giantism

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)

Uh huh. And “A few write encyclopedia articles on the subject” wasn’t vandalizing the article at all. It was a definite improvement in fact. [sarcasm] 64.11.244.75 18:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If writing stories is part of this fetish, then what is writing encyclopedia articles about it? I, for one, experience a frisson in so doing. What do you want to do? Deny me my fetish? Suppress the facts? Or is censorship your fetish? Paul Beardsell 18:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

And thus you reveal yourself to be the troll you are. How many times have you been blocked? And you’re still here? 64.11.244.93 18:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

But at least I have the courage to identify myself. You, it seems, won't stand by what you write. And, BTW, calling someone a troll is considered by the Wikipedia powers that be to be a personal attack. So, you should be blocked. Certainly your edits here seem to lack the intellectual rigour necessary to address the argument and possibly that is why you resort to ad hominem attack. Paul Beardsell 19:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

“Certainly your edits here seem to lack the intellectual rigour necessary to address the argument” seems to be a lot more of a personal attack than correctly identifying you as troll and vandal. Should I now resort “to ad hominem attack” by calling you a hypocrite? At least I came to this site with the right intentions. You, clearly, have not. BTW if you don’t approve of the current edit feel free to improve it -- I would be the first to agree it probably does need improving -- without once again resorting to vandalizing it.[1][2] 64.11.244.93 19:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly your truth (if that is what it is) would not be taken as a valid defence by the ArbCom. I am careful not to make ny attack personal: I refer to your edits, not to you. This weasel wordery is the standard technique here at Wikipedia. Endorsed as official policy! Now, I suggest you return to your extraordinary fetish. Surely you're not ashamed to identify yourself? Paul Beardsell 19:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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[3] 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)

Verify

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)

Verification is a policy of wikipedia. This page has some chance of being deleted if published works are not cited for it. Please keep that in mind when adding to or editing this page- if you are not working from some published work, you are probably doing original research and breaking the rules. Unless you're fixing writing errors, or something like that. Lotusduck 14:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd feel like a big douche if I nominated this for deletion for being original research if in fact someone just didn't bother to cite their sources but did have them. So I will wait some arbitrary amount of time before nominating this page for deletion. In the meantime, please take care not to create original research, and to base your writings on verifiable things in published works. It is the rules, and if you don't like them, you can write for answers.com instead. Lotusduck 15:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

See wikipedia guidelines for verification and sources. But in general, the answer is no. You verify things through "trusted, published sources." Lotusduck 22:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it's going to be hard to cite anything on BE because it's rather a niche interest... the only thing I can think of as possibly holding anything on BE is that deviant desires book. I honestly think you'll struggle to find any source that the Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.145.64 (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Lotusduck is right. Quoting forums and fetish websites are not reliable sources and I will continue to remove them as linkspam per WP:EL. Please find valid sources. ju66l3r 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL words

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)

Be bold. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Deletion!

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)

I have a good feeling about this one guys! I think my verbosity has driven people away from my AFD discussions. This time I am being direct. I am not citing how hard I tried to find a source, but rather saying that somebody should if it is even possible.Lotusduck 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I just did this, and now I am doing it again

The following is original research, whether you "reference" it to a self published website or not.

Breast expansion fetishism may manifest as a form of inflation or balloon fetishism.

Real-world breast enlargement

Breast expansion fetishists are fascinated by the processes by which women’s breasts can become larger, be it age progression, pregnancy, weight gain or surgery. It is common for them to examine closely the careers of adult and mainstream entertainers and their increasing, or decreasing, bust sizes.

Fiction

Breast expansion stories are fantastical tales of women’s busts being enlarged by air, food, magic, medicine, alien technology or some other unseen force. Generally, the amount of enlargement is limited only by the imagination of the author, from as little as a cup size to as big as room-filling and beyond. The imagery can also be taken as far as 'bursting of the bust', sometimes re-enacted in real life using ballons filled with imitation blood. Occasionally these stories involve other fetishes such as erotic lactation, anthropomorphism, macrophilia, transgender, body inflation, penis expansion, or any of the processes under the umbrella term transformation fetish. Stories and pictures associated with breast expansion may contain vivid depictions of sexual activity, but not necessarily.

Two examples of movies with breast expansion are Bruce Almighty and The Stepford Wives.

Morphs

Morphing is one way BE fetishists generate new media. A Morph is a photograph, an artwork or an animation which uses morphing techniques to expand a woman's breasts.

Breast expansion is a recurring theme in some H anime and manga. In the anime series Ayashi no Ceres, a young girl's skirt and blouse burst open as she transforms into a young woman with larger breasts and deep cleavage.

References, deletion and the future

People will always vote keep on things, policy be damned. But if we're going to have a consensus, lets make progress. I don't see any attribution. If there were some attributed facts that would make a merge, not a keep, since we want an article that can feasibly become a full article, not a permanent stub. I see several possible futures: Deletion- obviously I think this is ideal or I would not have nominated this. Redirect to * Breast fetishism or * Female muscle growth or...any other ideas? Move to some related topic that attribution can be found for, Something like "Breast size and sexual objectification" or what else?

A sudden unexplained discovery of newspapers, published books and journal articles using the term "breast expansion fetish" exactly the way this article does, accompanied by dedicated and responsible editors.-- preferable but I think unlikely.

Progress, anyone? Lotusduck 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference that I added is an excerpt from the book Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex by Katherine Gates (Amazon link). The webpage is the site for this particular book. The book is somewhat sociological in nature, relying on interviews with various fetishists, including BE fetishists. Other references can be added from primary sources such as http://www.overflowingbra.com/wiki/history:be_community and other webpages (such as those in the External Links section) that "are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about." (WP:ATT) These sources may also be considered "questionable" under the same policy, but questionable sources are not immediately disallowed as long as they are used in articles immediately relating to the same precise topic, which all of the sources I have mentioned are. LaMenta3 06:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune will do, I think, which is not questionable, and exactly on point, + Journal of Medical Ethics. .DGG 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WONDERFUL sources! I knew they had to be out there somewhere, as this fetish is not obscure by any means. LaMenta3 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A sudden unexplained discovery of newspapers, published books and journal articles using the term "breast expansion fetish" exactly the way this article does, accompanied by dedicated and responsible editors.-- preferable but I think unlikely. -- Unlikely as it may have been, I think this option is the one where this article ended up. ju66l3r 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lotusduck, would you like to withdraw your nomination? The article has been verified. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am re-writing the article to make the sentances match the articles cited, of which at least one has nothing to do with the article.128.101.70.95 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In your attempt to rewrite, you duplicated sentences, misplaced pronouns so that they no longer made appropriate contextual sense, and made the article less readable. ju66l3r 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon review I find the citations to be about either breast enlargement or breast fetishism, with none relating to both and with certainty none mentions "breast expansion fetishism." The corrected citations should be moved to articles that they more appropriately support.128.101.70.95 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that a site about sexual fetishes needs to some how incorporate the literal and full title in every mention of its terminology is ludicrous. Imagine if the article for the Star Wars movie from the 1970s could only link to locations that said "Star Wars IV: A New Hope" when it mentioned the movie at all... ju66l3r 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I found a link for the pursuit of beauty article "http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/26/6/454" if you read this or any of the other references, you will find they make zero reference to breast expansion fetish.128.101.70.95 14:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Deviant Desires book is indeed a published source, but the link does not support the claim on this wikipage. The link talks about body inflation and never mentions breast expansion fetish, much less how they are related. I believe that these edits were made carelessly but in good faith. Please do not restore them without settling this discussion of their lack of any direct reference to the term or idea "breast expansion fetish."128.101.70.95 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you can be editing in good-faith if you can't find the parts of the Deviant Desires links that says things like There are BE (Breast Expansion) fans who are only interested in breasts. and the picture on the page taken from BustArtist. The fetish map also explicitly says "Breast Expansion" as one subject within the Body Inflation genre as well. There are numerous ways that this book directly cites and discusses this fetish and it is wrong to relegate it to the External links (and without even a link to the actual text, but only to the image). Please discuss your desired changes here further before reintroducing them. ju66l3r 15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't log in but the sentances do not match the references. If altering the article to accurately reflect the content of the references makes it confusing and badly structured then this is the fault of the references being added poorly. The Deviant Desires may be relevant, but certainly isn't reflected in the article. You can re-add it in a better way, but I am restoring my general fixes thank you.Lotusduck 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second here. Paraphrasing: If your edits harmed the article, it's the fault of someone else. Astounding. Also, the Deviant Desires book page directly addresses and reliably sources the ways in which the fetish is manifested by the fetishists (pregnancy, etc) and you just removed it as refering the credential of that statement. Furthermore, the fetish map link references how other similar fetishes are related and suit the same ends of satisfying the fetish. Finally, by blanketly reverting me you introduced horrible cut-n-paste grammar and destroyed the point of having a WP:LEAD. You over-specify the details of the Tribune article in what should be a summary section and furthermore moved a sentence to follow it with the word "they" in it (which originally referred to the fetishists in its original context, but now refers to the family and friends of the article writer??). You ALSO just inserted a [1] instead of using appropriate reference notation which is essentially junk characters in the article now. Finally, when moving the image to the External links section, you didn't put any sort of phrasing to describe the link so it's just an ugly dereferenced out-link with no appropriate annotation. I'm putting it back and I ask that if you feel that any or even all of your changes have merit, you do them with far more attention to detail and caution for grammar, manual of style, and continuity of thought. Thanks. ju66l3r 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If it looks like vandalism and it sounds like vandalism... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism. That requires that we suspend WP:AGF to assume that everything done was malicious and I don't see any evidence that this is the case. I think Lotusduck is simply overly eager to "clean up" sexual fetish pages and disagrees with the article's sourcing and content. The article is likely still not perfect. I don't doubt that either, but the manner in which the text was treated was not conducive to good grammar, style, or structure of an article. That's still not vandalism, just bad editing. ju66l3r 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An excellent summary/recap. I concur. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)