Talk:Hogging (sexual practice)

This article was nominated for deletion on 26/4/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20/1/2006. The result of the discussion was delete.

I find this to be perhaps the most legit article on such a practice ever. absolutely no reason for speedy deletion. is it distasteful? yes. but how much of wikipedia and urbandictionary is? it does not change the fact that this is an active pastime for degenerates. should we censor knowledge of it though? no. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.160.60 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with the above -- if you take this page down the terrorists will have won. JJG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.36.123.162 (talk • contribs) .

I also agree with the first poster. This article is legit and is an extension of knowledge. Why delete such an article if it pertains to a legitimate pursuit of knowledge? 130.160.232.43 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel similarly. Just because this page has been posted on collegehumor.com and is getting constant vandalism is no reason to delete it. I do feel it doesn't hold up to wiki standards, though, on issues such as the "examples" given. Archtemplar 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. It's tagged for deletion because it's unsourced. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, examples are going to be personal and therefore hard to come by (as we usually hope all sexual encounters are), but links are now included to hogging related websites with stories and reasoning for such activities. This article should be untagged for deletion as of now. Calbearspolo 18:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Calbearspolo[reply]

It is absolutely pathetic that a once-solid article on this topic not only has been taken down but has been removed from the history section as well. That is shameful, irrational, indefensible, fearful censorship on the part of people whose agenda has less to do with informative articles appearing on Wikipedia and more to do with their own personal preferences and dislikes. For shame.

This article has been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogging. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. If this article is created again in the future, speedy deletion will be appropriate. Brian G. Crawford 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the article be deleted? It refers to something real. Why should it be deleted when Wikipedia is full of articles about minor Star Trek characters and other things that are fictional with no impact on anyone's lives and of far less relevance than this topic?

Recreation

I have recreated this article as a completely different article from what was previously here [1]. Please note the numerous sources and mentions in mainstream and academic publications, and try to keep this article clean. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the new article is better, I still think it merits a Wiktionary definition at best. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a well-sourced and discussed phenomenon, although someone decided to ignore the talk page and speedy it anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexual" isn't a proper noun, and I don't think it needs to be capitalised. Furthermore, the disambiguation part of an article's name should be as concise as possible. I'd suggest Hogging (sex). --kingboyk 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ON second thoughts, there's no reason I can see why this shouldn't be at hogging. 2 article dab pages are rarely needed, and the other challenger for the slot is really only a dictdef. They have about the same number of incoming links. --kingboyk 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I moved it to (sex) for now. If you feel the disambig isn't worth it, I have absolutely no protests, I think the disambig was created because someone changed this article to the dicdef. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, we must have been hitting buttons at the same time cos I ended up moving your redirect! lol! Never had that happen before! Anyway... Shall I move it to the main slot or leave it here? --kingboyk 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main slot works. I had an opportunity to recreate it at (sex) again during the edit conflict, haha. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Someone came along and edited out categories "Intimate relationships" and "Hobbies". Keep your biases and prejudices to yourself. Hogging is an intimate relationship. You may disapprove of it but it is still an intimate relationship and your dislike is not reason to erase an appropriate category. Hogging is also a hobby to those who do it and your dislike for that pastime is not a decent reason to edit out that category.

Likewise your edit of those categories to "Sexism" and "Abuse" are inappropriate. Hogging is not sexist; it involves discrimination based on obesity, not on gender. Likewise it is not abuse; both participants are willing.

Keep the article NPOV and keep your own angry biases out of it.

I think a better solution would be to remove all of the contested categories until we can come to a consensus on what is appropriate. Joie de Vivre ^T 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you contest whether or not hogging is an intimate relationship? Or a hobby?

Booty call (slang), Cruising for sex, Casual sex, Infidelity, One-night stand, Pity sex and Seduction are all listed under Category:Intimate relationships, along with various forms of pederasty. Those are not particularly moral or universally approved forms of intimate relationships, but they are intimate relationships - just as hogging is. There is no serious reason to exclude hogging from that category.

I can agree that it is as much a form of an intimate relationship as anything else, but whether it is a "hobby" is debatable. Is arson a hobby? Probably to the arsonist, it is, but it's unlikely that others see it that way. The article makes it clear that the activity is exploitative in nature. I think a decent compromise would be to add the categories "Intimate relationships" and "Abuse" and leave it at that. Joie de Vivre ^T 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why or how is 'abuse' applicable or appropriate? If you look at that page - Category:Abuse - you will see that all articles there involve unwilling recipients of abuse. Hogging is not like that. If you look instead at something that involves someone willingly receiving what others might consider to be abuse - say, Bondage (BDSM) - the (upper) category shared with Hogging would be Category:Human sexuality. Many and perhaps most people would not want to be subjected to sodomy or homosexual contact, but it would not be appropriate for either of those to be listed as abuse for that reason. Given that hogging is far more universally the province of two willing participants, how is it fair to label hogging as abuse?

It is fair, because the article describes the activity as "targeting" women and "taking advantage" of them, probably because in many cases the women are not aware that they are being mocked. Joie de Vivre ^T 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't telemarketing be abuse as well? How about advertising, for the same reason? Both target people and take advantage of them. People can hang up on telemarketers, or listen to their pitches; they can change the channel when commercials come on or ignore billboards, or watch commercials and read billboards; they can shoot down or ignore hoggers, or choose to fornicate with them. Note too that hogging isn't taking advantage of women; as the article states, hoggers "take advantage of their (fat womens') stereotypical low self esteem". That's not much different than a person taking advantage of a well endowed part of another's anatomy, or of their ability to carry on amusing or engaging conversation, or of a romantic partner's ability or predilection for eating out at fine restaurants or going to nice places or whatever else.

And it is an assumption, very possibly not often accurate, that the women are not aware that they are being selected for their chunkiness.

It is not a part of hogging (per the article, or anywhere else to my knowledge) that women who participate are subjected to mocking. The hogger may share, make light of or mock the whole experience later, but the women are not subjected to mocking. The article itself makes no mention of mockery, nor of women being degraded in any other way. Many who engage in hogging do it because they - and the friends with whom they share the experience - enjoy it and enjoy stories about it the same way they enjoy stories about a good fishing trip or a hard fought athletic contest or an unexpected turn of events in a card game or horse race or some other fun episode.

(unindent) Advertising and telemarketing are considered abuse by some. The reason that hogging is more easily classified as such is that unlike either of these two, it is an immediate interpersonal interaction. From this article:

"... he liked to talk about "sweat-hogging." A college friend, a good-looking guy, had been into it. "Let's go out and pick up some pigs tonight," the guy would say. He homed in on fat girls, demanded oral sex, then kicked them out of the car when he was done. "He'd literally boot 'em out with his foot," Rick says, telling the story just as his dad told it to him."

"Hogging, after all, is something men talk about with men, not women"

"I just talk to them like they're complete disgusting pigs," he says. "You gotta break 'em down with insults. Comment on their fat -- 'You're a dirty little pig.'"

""He's good because he has no conscience," Mark says mournfully." (presumably "good at it")

"The average hogger has little sympathy for his prey."

"They understand their place," Rick says. "They know they're pigs. They don't get it like a normal girl could. They're desperate."

This doesn't sound like abuse to you? (Abuse can be consensual if the person hates themself.) Joie de Vivre ^T 02:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some hoggers might kick a girl out of their car does not mean that hogging is abuse. Some football players kick girls out of cars. Some bars kick people out. Does that mean that football or clubbing are abuse? The other examples aren't necessarily abuse. So a guy tells a fat girl that she is a fat pig: she can leave, but some obviously like it or do not mind.

I've hogged 8) D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]