Talk:Urolagnia

Pictures

Can we have some pictures please? --131.111.8.96 11:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think pictures of watersports can be found easily enough on Google and Fleshbot that it is not necessary to put them as part of an article on Wikipedia, since they would not further the informational value of the article more than an iota.

NO, absolutely not. This would be direct violation of every single website that exists with rules and guidelines for pictures. As a sexual pleasures, it would be a picture that would be available to the public of all ages, be used unwisely, may involve protestors, and perhaps create a mess of problems. Colonel Marksman 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allergy

I removed this, substituting a reference to "skin rashes":

There may also be secondary effects, such as an allergic reaction in the skin of individuals sensitive to urine.

IMO, anyone allergic to urine has a very serious condition not particularly relevant to urolagnia: internal exposure is unavoidable except by (i suppose) "kidney" dialysis! Allergy means an immune reaction. Someone might be allergic to certain people's urine, bcz of substances in it that are not inherant to urine. More likely, what is referred to here is IMO some kind of chemical damage to the skin, similar to that produced by bleach or "harsh" detergents; those who are described as "allergic" may heal such damaged skin more slowly than others, or may just have had a heavier recent exposure.

I could be mistaken, but if so, IMO it's worth documenting. --Jerzy (t) 04:37, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

Safety Issues

Rereading more carefully, i have removed to here the entire existing health discussion, namely

In contrast to practices such as coprophagia, it is generally considered harmless, as in healthy individuals urine is sterile. However, a small risk exists if there is disease present, or bacterial infection of the urethra. There may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

I am not qualified to write a discussion this detailed, but i know enough to know this one ignores some facts and IMO is therefore suspect as a whole, in an area where misinformation is dangerous and where there is personal motivation for exaggerating safety. I have substituted a much more cautious statement. I assume a less cautious and more useful one can be prepared, but first document on this talk page any stronger statements of safety. --Jerzy (t) 14:24, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Removed from article:

Urine is inherantly toxic, as suggested by the evolution of the body's elaborate mechanisms for concentrating and excreting it. Therefore it is false to make blanket statements that absence of infection ensures harmless ingestion; ingestion by a person with reduced kidney function would multiply danger. Various urolagnic activities may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

Unlinke Jerzy, I am qualified to discuss this matter, having been a trained and practiced sexuality educator for the past five years.

Although urine contins body wastes, it is not toxic if ingested. The body's filtration system will send the wastes back to the kidneys for removal. One can ingest a toxic dose of concentrated urine or urea, just as one can ingest a toxic dose of caffeine or juice or anything else that is relatively harmless in moderate amounts. - UtherSRG 14:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, that's pretty convincing, as long as you'll also confirm that people kidney disease are either to sick to want to participate to a sufficient extent to be harmed, or sure to have been warned by their doctors.

I would guess this talk page won't end up growing to where it needs archiving, but i would hope that if it does get archived, at least a summary of this discussion will be kept on the talk page itself. I'm making a section out of it, to facilitate that. --Jerzy (t) 23:00, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Yes, in fact, UREA is threapeutic for some forms of cancer.. and there is a rich, long, asian tradition of urine ingestion daily to restore health. [this is pretty significant.] Can someone look this up and add?

Dispelling jokes and myths

"Male porcupines use urine to soften the females' quills before mating." And thus, all the jokes about procupines mating are dispelled.

--Why is the contents list almost at the bottom of the page? Bob the Pirate 23:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. It's at the top.

Hepatitis

In contrast to practices such as coprophagia, it is generally considered harmless, as in healthy individuals urine is sterile. However, a small risk exists if there is disease present, or bacterial infection of the urethra. There may also be secondary effects, such as skin rashes in individuals sensitive to urine.

I think it should be made more clear that one can get STDs, like hepatitis, from urine (this is true no?). Some people might take the part about it generally being considered harmless taken together with "a small risk exists if a disease is present" to mean that IF a person has an STD, like hepatitis, then it is only a small risk of acquiring it--which I don't think is true, hepatitis is usually transmited through urine and feces if I'm not mistaken. --Brentt 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Project Scrapped

I wanted to split the main paragraph into subsections based on types of practices. Each section would give in detail the how and “why” of this practice. I felt that the sections were not ready to go into the main article and asked for help. Two problems arose. The main one is as the article states there is minimal scientific research into this topic. I drew tentative conclusions based on eight years of reading internet message boards etc. Although I clearly stated what I was doing it is not the policy Wikipidia to bridge this knowledge gap due to the ban on Original Research. The other problem was due to the nature of the topic the normal vetting process that might have made the article acceptable did not take place. 13:25, 11 March 2006 (FHU)

What 'normal vetting process' is that? As one who did read and comment on your suggestions, I just feel that (the OR aspect aside) it's just too easy to fall into the trap of losing objectivity in the subject and ending up adding material that appears intended to titillate rather than inform. Graham 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful, very doubtful. There are specific differences in these here, and ought to have their own subsections. In fact, I find it very important that they be separated.

Well... maybe not subsections, but at least a clear distinction. It looks like we're taking everything and piling it all up into one thing, and it's main focus appears to be the drinking of urine. This should not be.

MOST Urolagnia fantasies do not include the drinking of urine at all, and is in fact not very popular. Writers of this article are turning it into something bigger than what it really is.

"Other variations include arousal from wetting or seeing someone else wet their pants or underclothes, or wetting the bed." -- this should strictly be the other way around. The article fails to include the tickling part of things, undressing while wetting, and does not emphasize that females are usually the ones doing the wetting and the guys looking on or urinating on them.

Urinating while completely nude is amongst the top of popularity. On a lower and tasteful scale along with that comes female urination in undergarments, a top favorite, and the lesser favorite, purposeful accidents while fully clothed (which includes the desperation. In fact, while in desperation, some refer to it as a dance.

You don't really need or require more research. You have an addict right here. Colonel Marksman 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my basic points which were that my words were not ready to go into the main article for several reasons. While the long time observations of two addicts have some value it is not equivalent to a real scientific study. And the basics of should there be sections or subsections and what should be in them have not were not vetted enough. Since you have unscrapped the project remember my subsections remain in the archives. My purpose from the beginning was to improve the article so I am always willing to help. 20:00, 2 April 2006 (FHU)

Ok, ok, ok, I see what you are saying, but I am basing a lot of this off of the great number of websites available. If you want a statistical study of most or all of these sites, you will find most of what I say pretty accurate. You can also look at stories, videos, pics, etc. on this stuff. It obviously wouldn't be a specific scientific study, but you could still get in some statistics. Colonel Marksman 19:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could do that but that would directly violate the Wikipedia policy against Original Research. A case could be made that due the lack of scientific research there should be an exception to the rule here. I felt that way for awhile but changed my mind. Remember there are links to websites in the article. 2:08, 5 April 2006 (FHU)

Main section too negative

The article implies that for most people who have this fetish their sex lives are messes up due to this fetish and therefore they are in need of deprogramming. In 2006 is deprogramming recommended for all who practice this? For only those whom it causes problems for? Or anybody?. 11:58 14 March 2006 (FHU)

I reverted the additions that make these points. They are POV, inaccurate and smack of a personal perspective or original research. Besides, we know what a 'fetish' is, so it's not necessary to spell it out again. Graham 23:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been necessary to take the whole deprogramming thing out I am sure people become addicted to Urolagnia as people become addicted to anything else. The fact that the article said attempts at deprogramming have been unsuccessful implies that the person who put it there had a legitimate reason to do so. My objection was more point of view and the fact that it needed more detail or a citation or so (If deprogramming is used or recommended in 2006) 17:41, 16 March 2006 (FHU)

Changed "tendency to be sexually aroused by smelling urine soaked pants or body parts [thighs,knees,etc.] that usually become contaminated by urine when a person wets himself" to "tendency to be sexually aroused by smelling urine soaked clothes or body parts". The word "contaminated" is a POV word. 20:12, 2 April 2006 (FHU)

I am a real enthusiast, & in my experience for most folks drinking it is the ultimate pleasure.

R. Kelly

Should R. Kelly be added to this page? Katana3333 23:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I already removed an earlier attempt to add him here. While this might be linked from there, it's not notable enough to be added here. Graham 05:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notables Section

What is the R. Kelly reference about? 04:14, 8 May 2006 (FHU)

The Wikipedia Page on Chuck Berry shows this

In 1990, Berry was sued by several women who claimed that he had installed a video camera in the ladies' bathrooms at two of his St. Louis restaurants. A class action settlement was eventually reached with 59 women on the complaint; Berry's biographer Bruce Pegg estimated that it cost Berry over $1.2 million plus legal fees. A Miami distributor is currently marketing video footage purporting to show Berry urinating on a young woman in a bathtub. Although the voice heard sounds similar Berry's face is never visible on the tape making his positive identification impossible.[1]

I am not sure if he belongs in this section or not. I am leaning against putting him in based on this. If I was forced to bet my house on it I would bet that he is an urophile. The fact that he did settle while making him look very guilty is not proof that he is quilty. And even if there is solid evidence he put the camera in the bathroom the motive might have been to see nudity not urination. 04:26, 8 May 2006 (FHU)

This whole section is questionable. For instance, there's no evidence that Shirley Manson is actually a urophile - her quotation is probably not meant literally or seriously, and song lyrics are evidence of nothing. Annie Sprinkle, OK, seemingly no problem there - but then it might just be her act. She includes many other things in her act such as using a speculum to show her cervix, which has nothing to do with this. My view is that where someone has come right out and said that this is their thing, then perhaps the article on that person might link back here, but I really don't see how a list of people here is useful in any real way - it's just sub-Sunday paper type titillation for the feeble minded. Graham 09:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]