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 • contribs) 14:57, 20 January 2007

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)

That said, the deviant desires page deals primarily with a different fetish, glancing at the page it is clear that it is not the sort of expansive article on breast expansion that we would prefer. The other articles have exactly nothing to do with breast expansion as a fetish. Even the films do not have an explicit erotic connection to the actual growth of breasts--the scenes where breasts grow are not sex scenes. I created the bad paragraph structure so that someone could move the references to somewhere they might be appropriate. What would have been more appropriate, removing them outright?Lotusduck 01:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Deviant Desires page deals with "inflation" fetishes. This is a meta-category that includes whole body, breast (BE), and belly/butt (B2E). The first example given in the second sentence on the page is breast expansion as a form of inflation fetish. It is dishonest to say that BE is not a primary concern to that page since the term BE is defined and printed no less than a half-dozen times in the 7 paragraphs on the page. As for the other references, the Carey article is entitled "Breast Enlargement Fantasy..." and the others provide support for statements made in the article that satisfy how the fetish is expressed as the article is written.

In other words, not every reference on an article page needs to include the terms in the article title. Often references are used to qualify the content of our articles that define the article topic. For example, the New York Times article might say that readership is down in recent years and the article linked may not mention the NYT specifically but be a more general treatise on how all major newspapers are losing to other media. That doesn't make that reference wrong for the article.

Finally, while Wikipedia is always changing, it's not a perpetual rough draft. Bad sentence structure, grammar, etc. is not a means to an ends for an article because the article is always supposed to be display quality. If you're unsure of how to rearrange something, then it's best to discuss it on the talk page first. If you don't believe a reference fits *anywhere* in the article, then it should be removed...of course, others may disagree and reinsert it where they find that it fits...which should then be discussed on the talk page. ju66l3r 18:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that we must follow our sources closely, which means that every source other than the deviant desires one is used incorrectly. They should be removed. Lotusduck 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

to be discussed tomorrow. I am not sure the narrowness of your viewpoint here will have consensus, but I want to do it is some detail.As a preliminary, I mention that it is highly appropriate for an article on Mars to give a reference to a standard textbook in Astronomy where Mars is discussed perhaps incidentally, but well. Even a book on the Earthy geology may have something relevant. It is furthermore not productive to get into detailed discussions of whether two very closely related topics are the same or slightly different. At finally, editing is not a mechanical process. WPedians are expected not to stop thinking when they edit WP. DGG 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on that last point/semi personal attack, and throw it right back at you. Even if it is okay to add sources that are not directly about the subject of the article, it is obviously not okay to add sources to a fact that the source article does not address, like adding an article on family disapproval of hypnotism and breasts to cite a fact about fetishism.Lotusduck 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

just to clarify, the editors who are not expected to stop thinking are the ones adding references to the articles: I am saying that they add them having read them and knowing them to be of some degree of relevance to the subject. The semi personal reference was to myself. I will now make a personal reference to myself: this is one of the many fetishes that I can understand only on an intellectual level. DGG 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't (or don't know how) to access the proquest articles in question. Until I can, I'm forced to AGF and leave the necessary reversions to those with access. --David Hain 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

here are the key paragraphs

It is totally in order for any editor who cannot get access to material cited to request the guy who put it in to furnish a transcription, because we aren't supposed to add material we know only by title. So, here goes what I think a fair use excerpt: (I can email the whole thing on request, but I can't post it all here - some part might be inserted in the article, but not tonight)--or the whole thing moved to a subpage of the talk page if too long.) (btw, Proquest Newspapers is just a convenience, they should also be findable in Lexis or Dialog or any other source which has that newspaper)

• Chicago Tribune: (Kimberly Carey , Breast Enlargement Fantasty a Big Burden to Bear Chicago Tribune 6 May 25, 1997

"Today I've tuned in during the middle of a conversation between my favorite morning show host and a gentleman who claims he can temporarily enlarge a woman's breasts through hypnosis. I learn that the enhancements are safe, painless, last only three days, and can add approximately 4 inches to your bustline by increasing blood flow to that area of the body. Or you can listen to this guy's tape series and permanently enlarge your breasts in just one month. For some reason, which perhaps I need a therapist to figure out, I'm intrigued. The deejay says he'll take the first 20 female callers who want to come to the studio the next morning to participate in a "group enhancement." ... I hang up the phone and wonder what the heck I'm going to do with temporarily enlarged breasts. "Does your husband want you to do this?" she asks, assuming that I am heroically trying to fulfill a sexual fantasy of the man I love. I assure her that is not the case and relay the earlier conversation with my spouse. ... "What if they don't shrink back to their normal size?" [a friend] adds, skeptically. This is a troubling thought that I had not considered. I suddenly have visions of oversized shirts, backaches and bras the size of a horse harness.

• LA Times: (Chris Lee. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Sep 26, 2004. p. E.8)

Abstract (entire abstract is fair use) "When [Tony Gardner] stopped laughing, he took the job on "A Dirty Shame," the raunch-friendly director's NC-17-rated sex farce that came out on Friday. The prosthetic designer's primary directive: Transform the gamine [Blair] into an exhibitionistic exotic dancer whose stage name, Ursula Udders, bespeaks her monumental physique. "[John Waters] said he wanted to get these as large as we can -- but not just be boobs on legs," Gardner says.

The construction of such breasts involved a higher degree of technical expertise than anyone had imagined. Six pairs were constructed out of materials such as foam latex, urethane rubber and balloon rubber, while the custom latex breasts used for Blair's nude scenes required a lengthy application process that would begin on her shooting days at 4 a.m. Other nonprosthetic "stunt breasts" functioned like bustiers, allowing the actress to slip them on and off easily -- even if they resulted in some unusual side effects. "She couldn't see her feet, couldn't tie her shoes," says Gardner, 40. "She couldn't put on a bathrobe or cross her arms in front of her face"

• J Medical Ethics (Fair use abstract from pubmed) I consider this a general reference on the theme of the article, not a ref to illustrate any particular point. I cannot see how any objections raised apply to this. It is good to have one scholarly article among all the newspapers.

"Facelifts, tummy tucks and breast enlargements are no longer the privilege of the rich and the famous. Any woman can have all these and many more cosmetic surgical treatments, and an increasing number of women do. Are they having cosmetic surgery because they are duped by a male-dominated beauty system, or do they genuinely choose these operations themselves? Feminists (and others) give diametrically opposed answers to this question. At the heart of the controversy, or so I claim in this article, lies a conceptual problem about free choice; therefore, the only thing that can settle it is a conceptual analysis of "freedom". After having briefly outlined the views of both sides of the debate, I offer such an analysis." DGG 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh...what?

Some of the external links on this page take me to some "ProQuest Login" thingy. Anyone want to fix that, 'cause I can't! :( 4.249.156.227 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

the Proquest part is for convenience fort hose who can get there; many large libraries have access. The originally published source is also given--it will usually be the print. Copies are generally available through interlibrary loan from any library. 09:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Disorder"

Keeping in mind I'm fairly new to this, as well as the fact that the use of such terminology as a "Disorder" in reference a fetish is more or less a matter of personal opinion (Note that there is little proof that a Breast Expansion Fetish is truly a hindrance, as well as there likely being a number of people who share such a fetish who would adhere to this fact.). This also tends to give the wrong message, implying it is some form of mental disability or that it indicates that something is "wrong" with a person who has this fetish, which is not a good way to inform people of this fetish, or of fetishes in general.

Also, I might add, that the stimulae for the breast expansion fetish are not necessarily relied upon. In fact, as I have myself seen, very few people must rely solely on breast expansion stimulae for sexual stimulation.

I might also note that only this page and the Breast Fetish page even reference fetishes as being "disorders", whereas most other fetish and paraphilia pages do not.

I thought I'd bring this up here, first, as it is a source that is cited for that particular sentence. Thesillyshmo 08:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sexual fetishes" refer to psychological conditions according to the DSM-IV and "World Health Organization" (it also has some anthropological gravitas, particularly in the culture of the USA). For anybody who wishes to label themselves in possession of a clinical condition regardless of reputable opinion - it is fine by me, but wikipedia is not the place for these assertions. I agree that there are problems among academics in defining the "fetish" concept in their journals/institutions but again, wikipedia does not provide a space for original research in order to influence or refute these debates - We are here to impart knowledge, not opinion.194.112.32.101 16:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On a second glance- I see what you mean about severity. It is true that the 'WHO' mention the level of degrees of a 'sexual fetish' disorder is changeable, and is not always severe (so I've edited the article accordingly). But as I implied earlier- the disorder remains in the literature even though some BE Fetishists may claim their independence from clinical practise and assert their collective state of well-being. 194.112.32.101 16:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)