Talk:Pregnancy fetishism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.


Please don't move the entire entry arbitrarily because you think "Maiesiophilia", "Maieusiophilia" or "Maeiusiophilia" or anything else is the right spelling. There is much debate as to the spelling of that word, so I suggest the article stay here, and anyone interested in moving it try debating it here. (Darien Shields 19:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

I apologise if any of my recent additions (the Community, Art, and Fiction information) is inappropriate to this article, and will completely understand if it is removed in the future. (Darien Shields 02:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC))

I am unsure what sorts of sites to include as External Links. I personally own a maieusiophilia site, but I'm concerned that linking it would be immoral, self serving, or suchlike, and furthermore, whether it is even that relevant. Although I'd say it's as relevant as the porn site that is currently linked. There are a whole load of sites that I could link, but I don't know how many could really be considered relevant. Someone also suggested that I ask permission of site owners before linking their sites. I really hadn't considered this before. Is there a wikipedia policy on linking permission? Well, anyway, I might add these things since I doubt I will get any reply swiftly, but would completely understand (and apologise) if someone else subsequently removed them. (Darien Shields 22:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC))

Your work so far seems to be good. I can't believe there would be a problem with linking to sites because you'd be generating traffic for them (which I assume is what they want).--DarkSide6 07:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
One person seemed worried that it might bring trolls who wanted to make fun of folk. That's happened before, but usually when links are placed on sites like "Something Awful". Anyway, I got presmission from the person primarilly involved (Darien Shields 05:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC))

Redundant article?[edit]

See Maiesiophilia. I don't know whether there is supposed to be any difference between what both articles cover, but right now that one seems to be mostly redundant. Merge anyone? –Ashmodai 22:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The other article is more about describing that term. While this one is more about the "culture". Jack Cain 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that the Maieusiophilia article is mostly redundant. I'd approve of a merge.
  • Merge The Maieusiophilia article sounds encyclopedic. The Pregnancy fetishism sounds pervy and rambling.Ghosts&empties 20:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • There is of course the spelling debate with the 'Maieusiophilia'. The articles should definently be merged, personally I don't mind which title is used as long as pregnancy fetish, and all spellings of 'Maieusiophilia' redirect to the same place.
  • This article needs some revisions. It does definitely ramble on and has little basis in fact with almost no references. 02:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge --Anchoress 11:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Maiesiophilia here[edit]

I've made Maiesiophilia a redirect to this article, we don't have multiple articles on the same topic on wikipedia. I didn't bother merging the content, because it was entirely unsourced. Feel free to go check the history and grab it if you want it here. --Xyzzyplugh 16:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to pædophilia[edit]

Who conflates pregnant women with prepubescent children??

Also, I don’t remember the bus driver in “Rat Race” seeming turned on at all. —Wiki Wikardo 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe pedophilia related to pregnancy fetishism, the issue is on the female body is pregnant and physiological changes occur while she bears a child inside the womb. It's totally acceptable in western countries (some couples, married or cohabiting, and if their religious-moral views permit it) to continue sexual relations with a pregnant spouse/partner, provided by the doctor/physician if the woman has no medical problems or not in "high risk" pregnancy. The only obstacle is sexual positions for her and him to feel comforting, or if he's aroused by how she looks (esp. her big belly, weight gain included). I think more and more people in western countries aren't thrilled or shocked if a healthy pregnant woman wants to have sex. 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah...the controversial scene was deleted, because the themes on sexual arousal was unsuitable in some regional and small markets (in the USA). Was "rat race" rated R or PG-13? That scene couldn't fit in some R-rated films ("x-rated" soft porn). It could be "offensive" to some audiences and probably not in a PG 13-rated film. Most DVD releases of movies have deleted scenes or extra footage included (directors' cut, British/Canadian versions, special insiders' look, etc.) and the DVD version Rat Race may had the bus driver/pregnant passenger scene. I never saw the movie or DVD... what's the movie Nine months has to do with pregnancy fetishism? 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is someone taking down external links on topics related to maiesiophilia and pregnancy fetishism? I want them back...they are useful, liable and credited resources, for goodness sake, it talks about what the article is focused on.

The web link below is from Wired on web sites feature pictures of pregnant women (belly shots, part-nudes, childbirth close-ups) and the issues coming out of the chance of "pervert" men or women will stare at the pics, trade them to others in fetish clubs, and it made me question what are the limits of modesty, glorification (a byproduct of love-making or procreation inside a woman's body, vs. snapshots of women in pain/discomfort at labor and c-section scars/stitches?) and just plain weird sex to only disturb viewers or readers?

It's important for privacy reasons and respect to the ladies, never just trade nude prego pics without prior consent or permission, chances are it'll end up back to the original source! And there are prego pic web sites ran or produced by pregnant women (or/and their husbands) admittedly into maiesiophilia, gravidaphilia, exhibitionism and "wife-sharing" stories within the pregnancy fetish community. Here's the web link below (but no prego pics...Ok?) :-D 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wired News: The naked truth of birth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


Please refer to the verification policy: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to challenge and/or remove it. Please note that the emphasis is in the original. If there are reliable sources for any of the things that I've removed (and am about to re-remove) add them and there is no problem. - 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If there are sources to be found, then they need to be added at the time the material is added as opposed to some vauge later date. Material without sources cannot be assured of being unbiased. I will continue to remove unsourced material per policy. 01:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Leave it alone, please. I had to restore some of the deleted edits, you could had discussed it first on the talk page. I want to find real hard sources and the pregnancy fetish community might contributed to the entries. But, additions must conform to the wikipedia's strict criteria standards. I've left "citation needed" for two or 3 of them, they look authenatic and not entirely personal opinion, refer to point on view on what's considered that way.+ Mike D 26 07:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok you're right. The clean up was needed, but the thing on "about the fetish" can't be totally inappropriate or broken wikipedia rules. I don't know any psychiatric magazine or web site can speak for the pregnancy fetishist mind either. What it's about is they are attracted or aroused by a woman, but while in her pregnancy, the belly is the center of interest.

I'm not sure the media is responsible for generating a public consciousness in a sexual nature of a woman's body during pregnancy. I always thought it's up to her and the man she loves, but this is about an abnormal (or "unwanted") attraction by other men come up to her and try to sexually involve her.

There's nothing morally wrong for a man to have a romantic feeling for a woman if she's pregnant (by another man, of course and she may left a bad marriage or not), but the focus on hidden pregnancy fetishism as a result of political correct attitudes to "feel pity" or try to "respect" women who gained weight.

Now I find it an unsourced statement (or there wasn't verification) like the media can warp other people's minds on what's sexy about pregnancy, but nevertheless it's a beautiful thing to happen for any woman...and her lover involved in the procreation process. +Mike D 26 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Leaving aside the value judgements applied in the above, the policy on verification does not require that material that may "look authenatic." [sic] It's dead easy: Find sources or the material must be removed. Here is a link to the version of the page that contains all the unsourced material, if someone wants to find sources for the statements contained therein and add the material in with reliable sources then do so. Barring that, I'm going to continue to remove material that is unsourced or biased. 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I know there was lots of pregnant fetish artwork based on popular animated toons on TV, movies, comics & video games. Fans drawn images of young adult females from Totally spies, teen titans, final fantasy, inuyasha, disney, scooby doo, tiny toons, street fighter, mortal kombat, south park & the simpsons are popular. The web sites have hundreds of images of female characters shown pregnant, story plots contain how they are involved in sexual/romantic affairs with male/female characters, stuff like that. I seen one Totally Spies sketch: alex, sam and clover learned they test positive, then find the 3 girls had a graduation orgy, and start to seek attractive bachelors for sex. I won't get into detail or on topics I shouldn't discuss, but fan fiction and prego fetish fantasies got rolled into one, an interest to wish that got on TV. 12:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're into pregnant women? here are facts[edit]

Rem off-topic discussion to User talk: Anchoress 11:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my tirade, and treated an off-topic. I promise not to stray far again in wikipedia. The men in here into pregnancy fetish must understand what's pregnancy is like, then do a double-take in their obsession isn't all good. I got two sons and a daughter.

Thank you on saving and storing the comments, perhaps a good idea to take it to the talk:pregnant area, or on second thought, it may stray to another area to make others discomforted and disgusted to perseverate on fetish topics in there.

I find it ridiculous for pregnant fetishists gawk at belly shapes or the computer-enhanced photos deleted very natural and normal traits associated in a pregnant woman's belly: blue blotches, purple veins and a "linea negra".

The prego nude/model photo effects managers "slim her down", made her belly "hang high", square-shape and further out, despite other women might have bellies "hang low" or not "stick out", show more on the buttocks, and they won't know if she's 5 mos., 7 mos. or rarely, over 40 weeks (9 mos): she should get bed rest and have an induced labor (more painful than regular or natural labor).

Education is the key to beat the rising tide of eroticizing of pregnant women, and I been there myself. - married mom of 3 children.

I hate to break it to you, but one cannot alter nor remove instincts by education. Do you realize that being a pregnancy fetishist is no more a choice than being a homosexual or a heterosexual is? Hell, anyone who gawks at computer-enhanced photos him/herself might find their hobby quite silly... but what can you do about it? It's not like there's a switch in the back of your head, controlling your sexual orientation. (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV & WP:OR[edit]

I have just removed all of the seriously non-neutral and unsourced essay material from this article. It read like someone trying to introduce others to their obsession rather than an encyclopedic discussion of the subject matter. Huge portions were full of WP:WEASEL words and described the online community more than the actual fetish. There is plenty of psych and other examination of this fetish from a more analytical and less anecdotal perspective and the former is what the article needs to be based upon. ju66l3r 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Roll back?[edit]

It seem to me that over the last year, a good deal of information has been removed from the article, while such edits as not in bad faith, it has reduced the quality of the article over all. I'd like to suggest, therefore, that the article is 'rolled back' to sometime before march 2007, and edited from there, in hopes that the article can be better written. However, i'd like ask what you think on this before going ahead with this move.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur, with provisos - I don't agree to a full rollback, but adding in various things that were deleted is a good idea. I have no idea why the Britney Spears bit got removed, it seemed quite enlightening to me. We just need to make sure that we don't remove added links and foreign language wikis. mattbuck 10:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, could you pick out the added links?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as no one has objections, I'll roll back the page. If anyone has any beef with this, I suggest it be discussed on the talk page.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article you restored was (a) an initial section of original research written in the form of an essay, not an encyclopedia article, (b) a trivia section of dubious value, and (c) a brief discussion of a controversial artwork.
I think a short article with facts is superior to an essay with original research. I also think that if the artwork and its controversy is notable — I don't know if it is, because the section was completely unsourced — it deserves an article of its own. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree the version I rolled back to has problems, but that doesn't warrant the out right removal of all uncitated information information, or reverting it because it has a trivia section. Edit the article, and improve it over all, don't just blindly follow policies and guidelines, try to improve the article over all. I'd like to improve this article over all, but that can't be done if the version I feel would be the best to work from keeps being reverted. For now I think we should operated under the WP:IGNORE, for at least a little while until we can get the article back into reasonable shape.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The version you rolled back to is pure original research and as such doesn't belong in WP. Valrith 20:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The version I rolled back to is the version I'm attempting to work from, so stop reverting it or nothing will be done. I'm attempting to improve the article under WP:IGNORE, and I'm not saying much of the information will be removed, but the version you reverted back to is a line and a cite.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If you agree that the article is bad, but the only reason you want it reverted is so you can easily access it to improve it, you should create a User subpage and edit it there until it's ready for general consumption. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I think that everyone should be allowed to edit the page, which is why I haven't. I may still do so if it's still a problem (reverts) by the weekend.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I have shoved an under construction tag on it. Maybe that'll keep people off. mattbuck 08:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
As Malik Shabazz states - if you want to perform extensive reworks you should use a User subpage until your rewrites are reasonably completed. Valrith 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason why I should have to. Nor do I see why you feel the need to revert the roll back everytime you visit this page.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a point, but there is no work being done on it... mattbuck 00:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, two sections down, I often don't have the time during the week to make lots of edits. That's not my fault, but I do apologize. I'll try to rewrite some stuff this weekend (and today). Let's just hope Tropical storm Noel doesn't knock out power in my area; the last time a storm this big visited Nova Scotia. we didn't get power back for 5 days!

I tried to out line what I'd like to do with this article down below, feel free to suggest other things or do some of it yourself. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

paedophilia again[edit]

I have removed "However, it is not usually connected to pædophilia (despite the apparently-common assumption)." because it's completely unsourced. Whether or not Pregnancy fetishism is connected to paedophilia definitely needs a reliable source, as does the fact that it is an "apparently-common assumption". Otherwise it is original research. --BelovedFreak 19:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this again.[edit]

Okay, Here's what I'd like to do. This article is in very bad state, both the former current article [[1]], and the one that, assuming it hasn't been reverted by the time you read this, is currently up. I admit that. However, I'm hoping to use this current article (the one with Moore) to build up an article that is ultimately a good article. However, I am not able to devote hundreds of man hours during the week, although I am free on the weekends, for the most part.

Here is the current problems with the current version (Moore):

  • First, OR, that's bad, very bad, But it shouldn't be removed out right all together; try to find citations first, and, if not, remove the statements then we can work from there. However, I ask that editors try to leave it in as long as possible, it will make editing th article easier.
  • The introduction is really, really long, it needs to be broken into the introduction and a section better explaining it.
  • The BS controversy, it seems rather bad, it should probably be reformatted into a section discussing it in popular culture, which would allow us to merge the trivia into a more useful section
  • Further more, the section in question seems rather messed up, and starts talking about the Venus figurines and religion, all of which can be cut up, moved to it's own sections, and such.

Once we have that done, it should be easy to look over the article and fix it to better suit Wikipedia's standards, but this isn't going to happen all at once. I really don't want to spend the next month or so in an revert war over differing opinions on which version is better. Well, here's the fact, both the Moore article and the One liner are pretty crappy articles, but at least the Moore one has more information that can be worked with.

I know we can work together on this an produce an excellent article. --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 03:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for no editting recently, I've been having computer problems--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Johnuniq did an edit [2] that is impolite to me!!! Does anyone explain why the external links are un-encyclopedic??? Especially for the THIRD link... " (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the first two were wikipedia mirrors, so it's pointless to link to those. The third one is probably more suitable as a reference. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, please see WP:ELNO. There are probably hundreds (thousands?) of web sites that could be related to this article. WP is not a place to list links. Sorry if you felt it impolite, but it's not; we all get reverted here. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual word[edit]

Okay, this article started all wrong. Maiusiophilia isn't when someone lusts for pregnant women, its when someone loves to give birth. If you google maieusiophilia, you'll see that all definitions trace back to this article. This article basically coined the word because the only other word that comes close to the word before this article is 'Maiusiophobia', the fear of childbirth. Maiusiophilia has no etymological right to be called the lust for pregnant women.

The actual word for the sexual lust for pregnant women is cyesolagnia, whis is listed under numerous online dictionaries and some, more elaborate dictionaries, such as the oxford dictionary.

Gravidophilia is also not necessarily a sexual thing either. It is 'a fondness of pregnancy', which may attribute to to a creature that displays pregnancy as a defining trait or can achieve pregnancy with the greatest of ease, just as extremophiles are creatures that live in extreme conditions and hemophiliacs bleed profusely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maiusiophilia as a sexual desire for pregnant women is verifiable in the first two references of the article. Have a look via google book search at pages "222" and "74" respectively. However, if cyesolagnia means a similar thing, then we should include it, and mention the context of its difference.
Also, if the terms "maiusiophilia" and "cyesolagnia" have existed for longer than the neologistic and oxymoronic term "pregnancy fetishism" then the article should be moved to reflect the correct meaning. Redblueball (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Maieusiophilia is most accurately defined as a love or tendency towards midwifery and in a much looser sense, sexual attraction to childbirth and pregnant women.
Cyesolagnia, on the other hand, is only determined as sexual arousal derived from pregnant women and intercourse with the same
I'm saying that Cyesolagnia is far more accurate in terms of predilection towards pregnant women. An obstetrician would be far from wrong to call himself a Maieusiophile, if he or she loved what they did, but a cyesolagniac can not say he or she has no sexual regard towards pregnant women or, at the very least, pregnancy.
I think the article should acknowledge the true nature of the word and not base its usage solely on its connotation.
[* in Google Book Search]
[* in Google Book Search]
[* on OneLook, a dictionary search]
[* Maieusiophilia on OneLook]
[* Maieusiophobia on OneLook] —Preceding
unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The links point to both cyesolagnia and maieusiophilia being forms of sexual attraction, but the sources are mere scraps of definitions and are without elaboration or reference to the origins and use... so you still may be correct. However, we really need verifiable sources to change the article as you mentioned.
I've also discovered the term pregnancy fetishism (or pregnancy fetish) exists, and will add the references to the article. Redblueball (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop culture references[edit]

The appearance of a pregnant (and nude) Demi Moore on the cover of Vanity Fair in 1991 should replace the embryonic example of Britney Spears; the cover was a watershed in terms of celebrity, exhibitionism and commodification. Redblueball (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Popular culture, the citation for House MD seems to have changed, does anyone know a good site that gives good summaries on shows? (I have watched the episode in question and it does come up, but my word isn't a citation :P)--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG[edit]

The image Image:Vanity Fair August 1991.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

How do you have an article on Pregnancy Fetishism and delete the one link to an active Pregnancy Fetish community site? It's not even a pay site, it's literally the only organized community for this fetish on the site.

Please replace The Impregnation's website back in the external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on your Talk page, the link is counter to Item #10 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, part of Wikipedia's guideline concerning external links. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The link is as much like Myspace/Facebook as the MayoClinic, WebMD and discussions. It is not a place for people to "Like" statuses or hook up with old boyfriends. It is a place where people come to share thoughts and ideas, as well as news and information regarding Pregnancy and Impregnation fetish. It has forums with discussions on the root of individual's fetish on the subject, as well as links to items related to the fetish.

The site has a social networking component, so does Wikipedia, but all content is open to all users. Accounts are only needed due to the adult nature of discussion.

Item #10 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID is the pot calling the kettle black, but in this case, avoiding anything that deals with "community" is avoiding one of the only sources of information regarding a fetish that is extremely prevalent but very secretive. If we are going to avoid what information there is available, in favor of what little information is presented by those who only wish to persecute the subject then Wikipedia should not even bother existing. We should be for truth, no matter who tells it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC) -- (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Mike Stephens

I've added a link to a discussion/poll regarding pregnancy fetishism on a pregnancy fetish website. It provides insight into the nature of this fetish which can't be found elsewhere. I should disclose that I'm a member. (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wishing for a Psychology section on this[edit]

I have found that there was a psychology segment around "erotic humiliation" and not around this topic. I want a psychology section on this topic because I came to this page thinking "why would anyone actually get aroused by this?" so I thought this would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7672:BE00:9816:F997:EB3D:8EE6 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pregnancy fetishism. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)