Talk:Crush fetish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alternative Content[edit]

The following content was originally part of the article but was removed due to lack of source. Now there are various links regarding the subject, feel free to add this content (modified if necessary) to the article as it becomes verified.

It can also be seen as a way of both shaking off and at the same time re-living childhood: the crushing of toys (such as plushies) being a symbolic ritual of casting off the chains of youth, whereas the crushing of bugs could be traced back to an early fascination with death. Taking a slightly different view, it could be seen that the fetish develops from an awe of adults: their commandeering power, their looming presence and even the literal act of mothers killing insects within the family home (which means further fetishism such as an Oedipus complex could be in play).

One could even draw the conclusion that the crushing desire may be linked to some fetishists having messily broken up with or divorced someone, thus causing them to imagine the object as their "ex" and thus perceive the crush as a psychological retribution against the significant other who betrayed them.

The main reason that crush fetishes form is that the child/adolescent who acquired it, experienced a situation in which they deemed shocking or had an impact on their life while experiencing puberty. The brain performs a mental substitution for the person forming the fetish and links it to sexual stimulation. Later on, when a similar experience is performed, the neurotransmitter phenylethylamine (chemical responsible for infatuation and love) is activated and provokes sexual arousal. Continued thoughts and exposure to such scenarios strengthens the connection increasing the likelihood of it becoming permanent. Some people seek professional help to rid of the fetish, but most people learn to cope with it and control it.

Some confuse the crush fetish with the trampling fetish. Both are foot-fetish related, but hold very little in common. As opposed to the crush fetish described above, trampling refers to the act of the subject being trampled underfoot. There is great disagreement in the trampling community as to why they enjoy being stepped on or whether with shoes or barefoot, but it is clear that the stepping is always upon themselves, not other living things.

END OF ALT CONTENT

Verify quote?[edit]

Someone quoted this, can anyone source it?

In words of a crush fetishist - "There is no better feeling than watching a bug, snail, lizard or frog wriggling in pain at the heel of a woman. It gives me a kick to see the woman in total control. She can choose the destiny of that helpless victim. The slower the process, the better. The woman should first tease the victim a little stroking it lightly with her shoe. She should then gently place her foot on it and begin to press slowly till the victim is pinned down under her. Then she should start twisting her foot slowly, gradually increasing the speed of the motion till the victim is pulped. She should not stop. She should go on twisting, sometimes do a total spin of 360. At the end when she lifts her foot, the remains of the victim, the pulp, stuck to the bottom of her shoe. The mess on the floor should make it impossible to decipher as to what specie it originally was. The woman should go about her business as usual, walking around town with the pulp still stuck on her sole till it cleans on it's own. That's the ultimate visual treat for a crush freak."

Cleanup & Edits[edit]

I feel this article is in need of a big cleanup, so I made some edits that hopefully take care of a few things.

There are several problems with this article, that I can see based on my current knowledge of the 'crush fetish.' -The discussion of and media containing 'animal crushing' is extremely difficult to find in comparison to 'soft crushing.' I found, by far, mostly legal sites of insect & object crushing. THis article mentions a lot of illegal content, and fails to identify the existence of the majority of material. -Most crush fetishists decry 'hard crush' content, while the article seems to paint another picture -The article talks about topics in the wrong sections or articles (i.e. Chinese laws re: animal cruelty and crush films are described in depth in the main article. -There is a photo - In my opinion not necessary as the other sexual fetishes include no photographs.

My goal here is to present an UNBIASED and factual and representation of this fetish through the article.

I'm removing the picture, removing multiple references to animal cruelty and putting it in one place, reorganizing some sentences, and including references to message boards and chats as this is the primary means of communication for crush fetishists.

I feel it is important to mention the horrible crush stuff produced by this Chinese lady and other people. THis is how many people will find out about this fetish and its important to mention. I know hard crush is not prominent in the crush community, but it is extreme, so its worth mentioning.

I feel like many people have tried hard to use references on this page, and many references have been removed, as they can be seen in the history. Admins and others requesting references should understand that other than placing links to message boards, groups, news articles, and online stores, it can be hard to reference stuff. But I feel the places I mentioned above provide a good representation of whats out there. I'm including some here:

http://www.ocmb.net - This seems to be the main source for communication in the crush community - a message board http://www.crushbabes.com http://www.crush-fetish.net, http://www.crushmovies.com/, etc. - very popular online stores for crush fetishists, several of MANY

The news items mentioned already in ext. links.

Several online groups - groups.yahoo.com/group/FemaleCrushingStuff groups.yahoo.com/group/squishythings groups.yahoo.com/group/CHE_Main etc. etc.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63862.000/hju63862_0f.htm Zendyindy 17:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The sentence 'There are currently no known laws forbidding the crushing of objects and insects, however the production or trade of crush erotica involving live animals is condemned by animal rights activists and is illegal in many countries including the United States and Great Britain' is contradictory. Firstly it states that insect crushing is legal, then it states that animal crushing is illegal. Insects are classed as animals. Jimokay 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC) --- I found another idiotic site with this content: http://www.footfetish-tube.com. Isn't sellig that stuff illegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.52.132 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of trampling[edit]

Someone wanted to include the trample fetish with crush fetish, which probably wasn't a bad idea, however the trampling fetish is poorly cited and needs a cleanup. Any help would be appreciated. Zendyindy 17:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE make trampling a seperate article. It is NOT similar to or derived from the crush fetish; while it may be related, it is CERTAINLY not a subcategory of crush fetish. 99% of crush fetishists do not have a trample fetish, and vice versa. The psychology behind it is fairly different, and trampling should not be considered as a subcategory of crush, but rather its own category or a subcategory of foot fetishism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.219.191 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 28 May 2006
Some deleted trample fetish on this article! Please put trample fetish back in this article! Trample and Crush are the same fetish and most people that have trample fetish have crush fetish as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.230.215 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 29 May 2006
They are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.161.20 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 28 June 2006
  • Interesting discussion If the people engaged in this argument could cite a source that verifies their statement it would help resolve this debate from a wikipedia perspective. Alan.ca 18:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.mistressdestiny.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=400 approx 79% of respondents to the poll (crush and trample fetishists) do not believe that the two are in any way related


SOMEBODY stop merging the two. thanks. deleted the trampling section in this article, am planning on making a seperate one or making it a sub-page of sadomasochism (much more related to that)

As soon as I figure out how to get rid of the redirect, I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.230.24 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


They are absolutely not the same fetish. One fetish involves a women trampling on a man whereby the man is aroused by being trampled, or by watching that happen to someone else. Crush fetish is where someone is aroused by watching a women crush something that is not a life-sized real person. It may be an insect, a toy, some fruit, a make believe tiny person but it is not a normal sized person. The difference is made clear in the name 'crush fetish' vs 'trample fetish', people who exclusively have crush fetishes BUT NOT trample fetishes are not aroused by someone life-sized being trampled.

Merge[edit]

I have added a merge tag to this article to match the one on Trampling fetishism. This needs more discussion before anything is done, so please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ at the end. Robotman1974 08:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No cogent arguments have been given against the merge, so I have completed it and left a redirect page at Trampling fetishism. Robotman1974 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & pasted from Talk:Trampling fetishism[edit]

Only someone that knows absolutely nothing about Trampling would suggest this article be merged with crush fetish. They are different subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.11.151 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 March 2006.

Please then... add content to the page that supports this position instead of just making issue in discussion. I've just edited the page to show the distinction between trample and crush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.73.76 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 March 2006.

It doesn't need content to "support" it. Whats there is enough to show that they aren't the same. =) Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.80.146.248 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 January 2007.

They are the same fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.234.113 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 May 2006.

They are not the same fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.212.188 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2006.


why are they not the same? Crush is focused on INANIMATE OBJECTS trampling is focused on THE PERSON WITH THE FETISH BEING TRAMPLED - how can anyone consider them the same? as someone with a trampling fetish I can say firsthand I have no interest in seeing a pebble or ant or whatever get stepped on. If it is such an interest of debate I will be happy to create a poll on a foot/trampling/crush fetish forum with a membership of over 50,000, and we can settle it once and for all.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.230.24 (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are absolutely not the same fetish. One fetish involves a women trampling on a man whereby the man is aroused by being trampled, or by watching that happen to someone else. Crush fetish is where someone is aroused by watching a women crush something that is not a life-sized real person. It may be an insect, a toy, some fruit, a make believe tiny person but it is not a normal sized person. The difference is made clear in the name 'crush fetish' vs 'trample fetish', people who exclusively have crush fetishes BUT NOT trample fetishes are not aroused by someone life-sized being trampled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.68.149.247 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on 06.30.06[edit]

I reverted changes made by someone on an IP address (200.60.251.204) removing much of the content of the article on June 15th. I'm not sure why??? No reason was given on the edit summary. If this person wishes to explain, please do so here. Until then, the page has been restored.Zendyindy 13:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert after merge[edit]

This article was just reverted to a version that existed before I completed the merge mentioned above. I have reverted back to the previous version I completed. The missing content can be found in this diff. Please do not simply revert the work I have done in merging these articles again. The additional info can be added in quite easily without the need to revert. Thanks. Robotman1974 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quote[edit]

Could the whole thing be used, or just part of it? "'Squish' is the name given to a brand of fetishism which focuses upon women — often in high heel shoes — trampling to death insects and small animals. A man in Shropshire was fined L2,000 in 1998 for the importation of squish films, following a joint RSPCA and Customs & Excise investigation... A man from Edinburgh was fined L1,000 in 1999 after Customs intercepted films with titled like Debased Dolly and Pain 32 which, according to The Scotsman newspaper, 'portrayed horrific sex scenes, including footage of women being raped." See No Evil: Banned Films and Video Controversy 402 n.22 ISBN 1900486105

Weasel tag[edit]

I added a weasel tag; this article is full of half-baked writing, such as "due to some videos involving small creatures, some films have been made illegal in certain regions." (Emphasis mine). Given detail, a sentence like this might actually mean something. As it stands, it's weak and poorly written. There's a lot of this here that needs to be fleshed out, but it needs the hand of an editor who knows the subject; I just don't.PacificBoy 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Crush v. Hard Crush, Animal Crush, and Origins[edit]

An additional term used often is "butt crush," or crush by women sitting on things. This can be hard, soft, living, inanimate, whatever.

Also, to my knowledge, there is nowhere where "animal crush" is entirely illegal, as animal refers to insects too. As an American, I can buy videos of women crushing non-vertebrates legally, both from US and UK websites. Hard crush involving vertebrates (mice, cats) is illegal to purchase/make in at least the US.

My final suggestion for this article is to include information on the possible origins of the fetish. In one paper I've read, crush fetishism could be explained by a sadistic desire to see something harmed by the fetishized object (foot/shoe), or a masochistic desire to see someone be cruel to a living thing, pretending that the creature is themself. Here is the paper: http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/09-15-10%20Volkan.pdf

(Just for the information, I only like to see women crush snails, insects, and food/objects. I find anything else morally wrong, including fish and crustaceans, although that is legal to make and buy in the US.) 72.185.195.221 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)SnkrCrpr[reply]

I wandered onto this page.. Apparently there is a Tor search engine "Cruel Onion Wiki" specifically for such things.. Rule 34 I guess. I'd also be interested in seeing a section of the possible neuro-psychological origin of this too - if such more research than just Volkan exists.
In any case, the above URL for the Volkan testimony doesn't seem to be active anymore; the Internet Archive has a copy at copy here ("Written Testimony of Kevin Volkan - Prohibiting Obscene Animal Crush Videos in the Wake of United States v. Stevens"). Jimw338 (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

"the United States, creating, distributing, or possessing [hard] crush videos has been illegal since 1999"

Not true. The Stevens decision struck down the 99 law in April 10 and the successor law was not enacted until December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B16D:E5ED:0:48:1482:E201 (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crush fetish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crush fetish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent expansions[edit]

As seen here and here, there is a lot of WP:Synthesis, poor sourcing and random cases being added to this article. PureRED and I have reverted before, but an IP-hopper keeps adding all of this material. Thoughts? I will alert WP:Porn and WP:Law to this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also alerted WP:Film to this matter since the top of the talk page is tagged with that WikiProject and since this article is partly about films. I would alert WP:Sex, but that WikiProject is very inactive. Anyone else is obviously free to alert that WikiProject. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also go ahead and alert the WP:BLP noticeboard since the article includes cases about living people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Via the BLP noticeboard I've watchlisted, started clicking around. I'm sixty mumble years old and did not expect to be shocked by anything I saw following links from here to a chinese news site. Legitimately used as a source I think. Roxy the dog. bark 20:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a very... interesting(?) topic. Thanks to everyone for staying vigilant. Definitely lots of synthesis going on. PureRED | talk to me | 21:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Newly added and removed photos[edit]

I removed some user-generated photos of a man stepping on various creatures such as bugs, snails and a lobster. I do not think that readers are in doubt as to what stepping on such creatures entails. The photos did not improve the article. I will restore ghem if there is a consensus to the contrary. Edison (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish?[edit]

No question they get a thrill, but is it always sexual? Some people just torture and kill animals. They enjoy it because they are violent disturbed people. Not all serial killers are sexual perverts. Not all animal serial killers are sexual perverts. According to serial killer, motivations are "anger, thrill-seeking, financial gain, and attention seeking" (presumably "thrill seeking" includes sexual gratification). The article is called "fetish" but that may not fully describe it. -- GreenC 05:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crush_fetish&oldid=1207589790"