Talk:Agalmatophilia

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statuephilia

I have moved the article from Agalmatophilia to Statuephilia mainly because the latter term is les sesoteric and is the one used in the Transformation fetish article. Lee M 13:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. The correct term is Agalmatophilia. If necessary a redirect could have been used from Statuephilia, which is not a true word.81.157.63.47 (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse logic

I'm not quite sure that impressionable young men being aroused by mannequins counts as agalmatophilia - after all, they're imagining that the mannequins are real and not the other way around! However, I haven't deleted the paragraph in question. Lee M 00:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's sort of like saying men who are aroused while reading Playboy magazine are attracted to the paper, rather than the person being depicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.213.189 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 June 2005

ASFR

I'm removing both references to ASFR. Whoever put them there can put one back in a more appropriate place with some kind of context and explanation as to what people are actually supposed to "see".

(see: ASFR or alt.sex.fetish.robots)

FireWorks 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a promotion - ASFR is a newsgroup, not a web site. That being said, it probably belongs in the Robot fetishism page. --Zetawoof 01:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was an asfr.com website, but it was abandoned and cybersquatted by some crap search engine. The term ASFR is used more generally to refer to the robot and statue fetish communities, which should probably be mentioned in the article. Lee M 12:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

Rewrote for clarity and to add a few more links, also removed section on "Islamist's campaign against Agalmatophilia" which wasn't strictly relevant after all Lee M 13:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

suggest merge with robot love

There's almost no real info on the robot fetish page, and it mostly discusses similar things as this. Anyway, I think they should be merged. Also, is the further reading sources for this information? If it isn't, this page needs sources, like all wikipedia articles. Lotusduck 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I think the page should stay at statuephilia and anything true from robot fetish should be moved here and robot fetish should be the redirect. Lotusduck 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Robot and statue fetishism are related but separate. Keep them as separate articles. Lee M 20:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external links

Unhappy with the removal of external links to statuephile sites as "advertising". Their removal also invalidates the mention of an internet community in the article since this can no longer be confirmed by following the links. Lee M 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Go ahead and put the links back. However, information on the article can only be confirmed through 'reliable published sources' according to policy. Lotusduck 02:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge

While the article itself is not written from these sources, this article does have sources. As such, I will suggest that Robot fetish, which does not have sources, be merged here rather than the other way around. Lotusduck 18:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced terms replace established concepts

Statuephilia, robofetish, robophilia, statue fetish, doll fetishism, mannequinphilia, cindyphilia, I'm in love with a statue.. the articles on paraphilias and fetishes are being edited as a matter of personal taste regardless of decent information about the meaning behind the established concepts. What is the point in inventing a thousand different words for "statuephilia" if the corresponding articles describe the same thing, except for the description of the sexualized object?! 194.112.32.101 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relocation of article

The page should be at "Agalmatophilia" not "Statuephilia". "Statuephilia" is a neologism, panders to popular culture, and assumes the reader cannot deal with "esoteric" words. The current situation presents knowledge as the lowest common denominator... and thus; for the good of "learning" - needs to change. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. However, there are a huge number of pages linking to "Statuephilia". I haven't time to correct them all, although of course the redirect will catch them in the meantime, but if anyone can help change them, please do.Quelcrime (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Done, apart from talk pages.81.157.63.47 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thoughts on page on agalmatophilia

The content is alot better on the agalmatophilia page I noticed the sites linking out are usually on doll fetishism and mannequins, or on 'living statues' There seems to be no pages online for or about those who love actual statues.

Is it considered weird even among other agalmatophiles that to love an actual statue is wrong? I myself am in love with an actual statue, and I have a 7ft 5 replica of the statue in my home. I am also female. I have never heard of or come across a female agalmatophile, apart from myself - ever! not even one who likes dolls or mannequins....

I had looked around for that mentioned agalmatophile community.. the only thing I found was for doll lovers - which isn't really what I am looking for. I

1 thing to mention about the main description of agalmatophilia though- for me at least its not all about sex. It is about love, and also having a sense of eachothers feelings. I do beleive though my darling is immobile, that she can sense me, and feel my touch, as I feel hers. We are like any other couple in alot of ways. It is not merely about sex. At least for me and her —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.84.63 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agalmatophilia vs Objectification

The entire paragraph about the movie The Cell seem inappropriate. Turning real women into dolls is the exact opposite of turning dolls into real women.

Perhaps for information about Pygmalion or the news stories about men falling in love with pillows or dolls would be better.Sheherazahde (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agalmatophilia. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080418080332/http://www.la.com:80/movies/10291657.html to http://la.com/movies/10291657.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Agalmatophilia. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927082018/http://www.saltmag.net/display.php?article_id=240&author_id=94 to http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2005/10/11/real_dolls/index_np.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927082018/http://www.saltmag.net/display.php?article_id=240&author_id=94 to http://www.saltmag.net/display.php?article_id=240&author_id=94
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.la.com/movies/10291657.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]