Wikipedia

Talk:Macrophilia/Archive 2

< Talk:Macrophilia
Latest comment: 3 years ago by DivineRobyn in topic Male Dominance of Macrophilia Fetish?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

One More Source!!!

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't fully understand how to edit wikipedia articles etc. But I believe this article isn't right. Essentially it doesn't give enough information to the wider public. Which is what wikipedia is for.

These articles all explore further macrophilia. And microphilia. (Spelling may be wrong) Which hasn't been mentioned in the article. Which involves a shrunken person.

http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/inside-world-macrophilia-sexual-fetish-celebrates-everything-big

http://contemporaryqueer.com/2015/06/gay-macrophilia-sexual-fetish/

http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/inside-world-macrophilia-sexual-fetish-celebrates-everything-big

Pornhub is mentioned but I believe these are very popular websites and you can check that by looking at how many hits the website received every hour. (Maybe)

http://www.giantessworld.net/browse.php?type=recent

This website is popular and I believe shows how prevalent macrophilla is in the gay community:

http://www.coiledfist.org

Also you could add images of both male and female giants. Create a separate wikipedia article for microphilia. Show in media how giants/giantesses are explored e.g. fanfiction/photo manipulation etc

I know I understand very little of Wikipedia but I really want this topic to be told to people in a way that informs them fully. You could all create an article that really works well. And separate articles. For example: the fetish also incorporates other fetishes e.g. foot fetish.

I can't edit or do any of this because honestly don't know how but I'm asking all of you to please explore this properly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.53.138 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

{re|86.145.53.138}(http://contemporaryqueer.com/2015/06/gay-macrophilia-sexual-fetish/)[1] is a really good source to add. I don't know how this seem to exist on any major search engines, considering it is more than a year old and seems pretty legit. I don't it really contributes too much with all the sources listed, but it adds weight certainly and does describe male-giant as popular (something none of the other sources do and some perhaps less informed sources contradict). I will admit the source doesn't seem to have much weight in terms of notoriety, despite it's premium domain name, however the sheer labor output {in general across the sources various publications) seems to out perform many heavily relied upon sources/publications used in this article. Also, I titled your talk post for you so it doesn't look like a reply to mine :P User:Eaterjolly (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another source tooo! https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-excess/201504/big-loveEaterjolly (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Compilation: Best Sources, Primary

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

In my work so-far rewriting the article in my sandbox, I've read and re-read most of all the sources. Unfortunately, the relevant chapter of our one book source is no longer freely available, but it is a valuable secondary source. Many of the articles actually used are haughty tertiaries. A few sources stick out with loads of anecdotal information, whether from the writer being a primary source or them writing a work compiled using information gathered from primaries, rather than regularly consultant psychologists with dubious-at-best experience with the community itself. Here I will list a few of them, to give other editors an opportunity to review them and make their own judgements on the veracity of these sources versus the others listed.


These all are very interesting reads. I would hold back on or just skim the felarya lore archive, as it is verbose and most of it has little to do directly with the matter of writing this article besides offering a source on relevant themes. More sources would be great, but I think the task of retrieving more sources can be demoted in importance at the moment. Eaterjolly (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. Macrophile.com and girlonthenet.com don't pass either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The wiki is just the format. It's closed to a predefined list of authors, with a primary editor highly notable in the community. It is not a wiki by definition, because it does not crowdsource and is a primary source (uses no other source and describes a thing created by it's author). The only thing that makes it like a wiki, is that it uses the mediawiki software. [Macrophile.com] is a source cited in the AlterNet article. Also, I don't see how girlonthenet doesn't pass? It's a primary source published on the blog of a bestselling book author, the equivalent of a newspaper blog? The publisher is a notable authority on sexuality, given the subject matter on their book. I'll admit it's not a great source, but it is MUCH better than a lot of these articles which cite no interviews, no direct interaction with the community, and provide no evidence of less than shallow research. When it comes to the Samuel Ramses study published on the Macrophile faq, it was also cited in the AlterNet article, implying some sort of journalistic credibility to it. Eaterjolly (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You can ask about the sources at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, but I don't think they pass. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Really didn't get much comment as I would have liked. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_216#Source-Sensitive_Topic:_Macrophilia_.7C_Souces_need_independent_audit.
Still relatively inconclusive, if you ask me, I might try reposting and send out more invitations for discussion out to user_talk pages. Eaterjolly (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Move Article?

Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

There has been a rising G/T (giant and tiny) movement that has been promoting the usage of "Size Fascination" as an all-encompassing term including macrophilia, but also non-sexual aspects on the interest/community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.230.105 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by the WP:Common name policy in cases such as this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, as some of the sources kinda demonstrate---like in Vice's interview---, some people try to distinguish macrophiliac from so-termed "microphiliac". I personally think the distinction just goes to show a silly extension of identity politics. Bickering over what's macrophilia and what instead is "microphilia", has from what I've personally noticed provoked some to avoid either term.. that and the sexual connotation carried with -philia Eaterjolly (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking and NPOV might apply to the naming. Since very many believe giant-and-tiny fascination isn't inherently a fetish, perhaps shrinking this article down to a section in larger article entitled "Size fascination in art". That would seem to make sense with the sources I found a while ago and posted down below that merely talk about giant or tiny size as a theme in art. An Alice in Wonderland image can be used for the lede and a Karbo image can be used for the section on Macrophilia and that solves that. Would you support that Flyer Reborn? Eaterjolly (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No. "Size fascination in art" is not the topic. Macrophilia is. And I'd need to see solid sources specifically about "size fascination in art" to support such an article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I've come across dozens of articles talking about a long history of tinies and giants in film and books. From Micromégas to Antman to the Borrowers to Arthur and the Invisibles to the Indian in the Cupboard to the Wonderful Adventures of Nils to troves and troves of non-fetish related fiction. I suppose "Size fascination in media" would be more precise, but personally media always sounded too much like news.
What would you look for in "solid" source to confirm the validity and notability of size fascination in culture article?
{ooh culture seems more suitable that art or media!)
Eaterjolly (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
What WP:Reliable sources state. Whether you create the article or not, the Macrophilia article is its own topic and should not be hidden in an article about art. This is a topic about people (mainly men) who have "a fascination with or a sexual fantasy involving giants." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the "mainly men" stereotype comes from the "mainly men in porn" stereotype. When journalists look at macrophilia from the lens of a porn mag, then surely they will see that trend. However not only is one of the big three artists I mentioned (FriendlyFoxpal) female, but also the chief organizer of Sizecon (whom if the talk post signature speak honestly, tried to edit that stereotype out of this article). Anyways, the stuff people generally associate with macrophilia and vorarephilia typically get associated with art (literary or visual) even if some also gets associated with porn. Curiously I find that similar to how non-sexual fiction occasionally gets pornified fanfic/fanart like Undertale or Overwatch (which just occurred to me because an editor whom I asked for help judging sources did a featured article on and I recently bumped into them in comments section of a video, weird enough ha). I think the fact Karbo identifies as a Vore artist on all profiles and has at least a few deviantart awards. Alloyrabbit another one of the big three I mentioned, had the two major size booru'es years ago put up notices saying that due to the artist not wanting their art associated with porn alloyrabbit's art was banned from the site and would get immediate moderation when reported. I'm sure most would feel FriendlyFoxpal's art implicitly just does not belong on such websites, so, of the most notable Macrophilia artists, only Karbo's gets associated with porn however Karbo's also ironically gets associated with high-art. I don't think a reliable source, necessarily has to mean a journalistic source (especially since government often get cited even when not strictly a self-source). Deviantart statistics are a secondary source about Karbo and deviantart awards have significant oversight and being a vore artist qualifies as WP:SELFSOURCE. No one has explicitly stated macrophilia or 'Size fascination' is an art movement, however the pattern exists and all the evidence is readily cite-able over the internet.
Eaterjolly (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
You speak of stereotypes. But it is a fact that the vast majority of macrophiles are men. A fact which is sourced in the article. It is a fact that the majority of people with a sexual fetish or paraphilia (especially as far as paraphilias go) are men, as noted in those Wikipedia articles. Even with women possibly being underreported as fetishists or as having a paraphilia, experts are clear that men would be the majority of the subjects either way. As for porn, like I stated elsewhere on this site, research has consistently shown that teenage girls and women prefer romance novels or erotica to porn; this has been cited by some researchers as "men being more visual creatures" than women, and so on. This is not to state, however, that a lot of women don't watch porn; a lot of them do. But like this 2011 Time piece citing researchers states, "Women prefer stories to visual porn by a long shot. The most popular erotica for women is the romance novel. That has more punch than any other kind of erotica. The second most popular would be fan fiction. This is something that has really exploded on the Internet. These are stories written by amateurs, mostly women, about characters from pop culture, movies, books, etc." The source then goes on to explain the sex differences. No, I don't think we should be including Deviantart statistics in this article, and a "Size fascination in art" article should not be created based on those statistics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
That raises the interesting question about whether macrophilia explicitly and only means fetish.
Certainly many source from publishers writing about fetishes, call macrophilia a fetish, though there they have the lens they look through. Certainly a publisher focusing on economic systems might call 'communism' an economic system, yet that doesn't detract from any point arguing 'communism' should primarily get considered a political ideology. A word can mean both, and, in anthropology, the term fetish can mean a non-sexual fascination. Common usage though separates fascination from fetish, however macrophilia definitely means and implies both in a one or the other way. Many have sought to popularized terms like G/T or size fascination to avoid association with the fetish, however most people who have the fetish treat the non-sexual aspect as a still interesting sub genre.
If a reliable source were to describe 'communism' as an economic system, then naturally that source would primarily only get considered reliable for citing economic aspects about 'communism' not most general aspects.
What do you think?
Eaterjolly (talk) 02:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your latest argument is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what to think, so you shouldn't treat my opinions on this necessarily as starting with a conclusion to inch towards so-much-as inching my way towards a conclusion to hopefully end at.
We have two very closely intertwined topics with a very unclear ontological relationship.
Eaterjolly (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macrophilia. 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) 16:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Art from prominent vore and macrophilia artist "Karbo" in the article lead

Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

After talking to Karbo about licensing on wikipedia, the fellow gave permission to use one image, but still hasn't clearly stated that image can be considered CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.

Attack of the 50ft poster doesn't well represent modern macrophiliac art, and is more suitable for a "History of macrophilia" section.

I mentioned putting 1 {mild full frontal nudity} in the lead and Karbo recommended 2 {as an sfw alternative} however prefers that their art not be censored in anyway for use on wikipedia.

I think there are two camps in modern macrophiliac artist communities GT (a.k.a. giant/tiny) and GTS (a.k.a. giantess). Giant/Tiny art tends to be gender-neutral, non-nude (except occasionally "tinies" who shrink out of their clothes), and gentle, while Giantess art tends to be gender-specific, full-nude, and either cruel or teasing. The first image perfectly characterizes all of those, depicting what would be GT on the left side of the image and what would be GTS on the right side.

In terms of notability, Karbo's images have been given awards on deviantart as well as featured in books and articles about macrophilia and vore.

I'd like to RfC other editors watching this page, what do you think? Eaterjolly (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

There would need to be secondary sources that identify any proposed image as relating to this topic. Images need to serve an encyclopedic purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Attack of the 50ft poster clearly is more famous and classic than Karbo's works, so it's no necessary to replace it.安眠3 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

As above, the Attack of the 50ft Woman poster is obviously a much better choice for the article. Not just because it's more famous, but because it's also much more characteristic of macrophilia in general. All of the suggested examples of Karbo's works contain anthro elements, which are a further sub-niche (or more like cross-over elements from other distinct fetishes). They're fine artwork, and could potentially be used further down the page if one were to add a section describing various sub-genres of macrophilia (whether such a section would be a good fit for the wiki article or not), but it doesn't make any sense to replace the 50ft Woman poster in the lead with them. 49.180.97.106 (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@49.180.97.106: @安眠3: @Johnuniq:
* Anthro elements shouldn't be 'excluded' on those grounds, rather due-weight should apply.
* Karbo's art better reflects contemporary giant/tiny macrophile/microphile art.
* The current image is a movie poster from a Godzilla inspired film, the authors probably had nothing to do with the macro/micro community.
* The current image over-emphasizes sexualized macrophilia, and Karbo's art strikes a closer middle ground between those who sexualize the interest and those who view it as very strictly non-sexual.
* The current lead image belongs in the history of Macrophilia, but is almost irrelevant to the present.
There is a cited source which mentions Karbo as a prominent macrophiliac artist. I believe finding a source which reliably investigated and identifies an image that represents macrophilia is unrealistic, and I believe the only sources which mention the current image as associated with Macrophilia do so because it sounds like an ironic joke (that one wouldn't expect to be accurate).
Eaterjolly (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think those points make a very good case. One by one: 

"Anthro elements shouldn't be 'excluded' on those grounds, rather due-weight should apply."

1) I don't think anyone advocated for anthro elements to be "excluded" as such (an earlier comment suggested it maybe being appropriate further down the page in a hypothetical 'sub-genre' section), the point is simply that anthro represents a sub-genre/crossover fetish more than it represents macrophilia generally. Due-weight is the best reason anthro content is probably inappropriate for the header image. 

"Karbo's art better reflects contemporary giant/tiny macrophile/microphile art."

2) It doesn't. The original Attack of the 50ft Woman poster is much more representative of the sorts of artwork much more commonly seen around the various micro/macro websites today. Even doing a quick Google image search using the term "macrophilia" returns hundreds of "giant person in a city" type images (including this very poster several times over), with relatively few examples of Karbo-like "anthro giant, frequently in fantasy setting" type images. Karbo's artwork might be popular, but it's still less representative of modern macrophilia than the AOTFFW poster. 

"The current image is a movie poster from a Godzilla inspired film, the authors probably had nothing to do with the macro/micro community."

3) Irrelevant. Whether the image was created by/for macrophiles or not, it has long been popular in - and largely representative of - the macrophilia community. From what you say a few points down, I doubt you'd deny that this film (and others like it) has had a huge impact on the community, so wanting to set it aside simply because it wasn't made specifically as macrophilia fodder seems unjustified. 

"The current image over-emphasizes sexualized macrophilia, and Karbo's art strikes a closer middle ground between those who sexualize the interest and those who view it as very strictly non-sexual."

4) There's nothing overly sexualised about the image at all, unless you're referring to her slightly skimpy makeshift clothing? Additionally, both candidate examples of Karbo's work you posted earlier are either on a similar level of "sexualisation" (somewhat skimpy lower-body clothing on the girl on the left in Dragon Brawl), or contain outright nudity (Naga and fairies). Regardless, macrophilia is most commonly described as being a sexual fetish/fantasy, with the article itself making this clear throughout. Objecting to the fact that the lead image might be slightly sexually suggestive - even if not sexually explicit - seems a little at odds with this. 

"The current lead image belongs in the history of Macrophilia, but is almost irrelevant to the present."

5) As above, I couldn't disagree more. Not only is the AOTFFW poster still fairly representative of much of modern macrophilic artwork, but the movie itself is still totally relevant within the community. It has been remade/parodied many times over (including in the last few years), it continues to get referenced/parodied within community artwork, it (and its remakes, and movies inspired by it) continue to be cited as entry points into macrophilia, etc.

Just to be clear: I'm not arguing that the AOTFFW poster is absolutely the best image to be used for this article. I'm not even necessarily arguing that it's a better fit than ANY of Karbo's artworks, I'm mostly commenting in reference to the two candidate examples linked in the first post. Perhaps if someone were to link some additional candidates (from Karbo or elsewhere?), or if there were some other compromise we could come to (a montage of several images?), we might be able to agree on something that works better overall?

Sizeposter (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Sizeposter:
For the sake of any lurkers reading ex post facto, I'm going to interspace your rebuttal with my bullets, feel free to revert.
The common theme among all your rebuttals appears to be a lack of inclusion of the giant|tiny community concentrated on deviantart and discord.
Like with youtube, non-sexual art tends to gravitate to one hub rather than scatter, simply because the animosity towards lack of art in fetishized content. Pay attention and there is very little that technically set size fetish and mere size related media apart except the level of perceived depth.
For clarification, I mean sexual as in ecchi. Realistically, where I and others around the world say "sexualized", we innocuously are bundling non-sexual violence/destruction fantasies in the bundle, even though admittedly that's a mythical self-fulfilling association.


If an article were about a meme originally predominant on youtube however, sexualized by 4chan spread over the internet to booru's and feeds everywhere, Would the article give extra-weight to the sexualized version simply because more "websites" carry it?


There are three leading figures in Macrophilia as a whole, Karbo, Alloyrabbit, and FriendlyFoxpal. All have been around outputting at insane frequencies for about the same length of while. All of them have coalesced just about every trope that exists in macrophilia broadcasting them to inspire the more art-blocked (by comparison) rest of everyone. None of these three are inventors, however like Edison they take ideas which exist and make them possible in art. Now, the most prominent macrophiliac artist uploading to pornhub and deviantart credits Karbo on a consistent basis for continued inspiration for the comparatively incredibly short while they've been around.
Sexualized macrophilia definitely accounts for about half of all macrophilia, however if I were to list all the non-sexual groups on deviantart I count: FreeGt (49 members), GentleGiantsGroup (443 members), GT-Fluff (255 members), Giant-Tiny-World (254 members), GT-Adventures (239 members), Inspired-GT (219 members), Tinies-Group (170 members), and dozens of smaller groups. The seemingly largest single sex-neutral group, Big-and-Littles (2 358 members), seems predominently non-sexual despite being neutral in their submission requirements. While there is likely to be some overlap between members in multiple groups, giantessbooru can't have more than 1 000 registered and active accounts. Both likely have significant numbers of lurkers, and we'd get even more people on deviantart's side if we counted people subscribed "watching" these groups (which is a public statistic).


In summary of my above statement, most of your rebuttal is based on trial by verbal combat re-iterating a partisan view including only the sexual macrophilia community.


Of the three most prominent macrophiliac artists (Karbo, Alloyrabbit, and FriendlyFoxpal) Karbo is the only one that draws nude art while Alloyrabbit and Karbo are the only of the three who have drawn city destruction (Karbo rarely does, and only seems to canonize cities safe from fetishized destruction).
The very idea of city destruction goes against the grain of the giant|tiny community which focuses on depicting gentleness.
Hence, why this movie doesn't represent them and many would probably be disturbed to be associated with.
Eaterjolly (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)



Actually many original illustrations from multiple versions of Alice in Wonderland exist in the public domain, perhaps one of those images would be most appropriate for the lead? Eaterjolly (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


@Eaterjolly: I think it's safe to say that you're failing to rebut my overall point, and are also being a little too biased and hypocritical in your own positions.

For starters, I spend a lot of time around the non-sexualised giant/tiny communities on deviantart, discord, and other places (tumblr, twitter, etc), so I disagree that anything I've stated has suggested unfair "lack of inclusion" of these groups. Plenty of SFW G/t artists produce and enjoy giant-in-a-city content, it's not a scenario that is necessarily exclusionary of this group. But as I made clear in my previous reply, I'm not arguing that the AOTFFW poster is necessarily THE best and most representative lead image we could use. I merely stated that it's more representative of macrophilia in general than the proposed Karbo images - one of which also featured a destructive giant-in-a-city scenario.

As for sexualisation, the AOTFFW poster itself isn't sexualised in any meaningful way. As even you pointed out previously, the poster wasn't made as fetish material, it's literally a mainstream advertisement for a movie (the content of the movie itself isn't sexualised either, making it comparable to the Alice in Wonderland and Gulliver's Travels examples you mentioned later). The two Karbo images you proposed, on the other hand, contain much more directly-sexualised material (especially if you want to include "non-sexual violence/destruction" under this banner). The argument you're trying to make here harms your proposal more than it harms my rebuttal: you can't argue that the AOTFFW poster somehow caters too much towards the "sexualised" side of the community and/or features unrepresentative violence/destruction when the very images you advocated to replace it with are either more sexualised and/or also contain a similar degree of violence/destruction.

For another point where your argument is only hurting your position: 

"Of the three most prominent macrophiliac artists (Karbo, Alloyrabbit, and FriendlyFoxpal) Karbo is the only one that draws nude art while Alloyrabbit and Karbo are the only of the three who have drawn city destruction (Karbo rarely does, and only seems to canonize cities safe from fetishized destruction)."

I take issue with your proclamation of these specific artists being "the three most prominent macrophiliac artists" (this highlights some of your own biases), but I'll happily grant it here for the sake of argument. Karbo and Alloyrabbit both frequently produce artwork of comparable (if not more extreme!) scenarios to the AOTFFW poster, and taking a quick look through FriendlyFoxpal's DA/tumblr reveals that not only have they drawn giant-in-a-city type images (which are comparable to the poster even without any destruction), but they've even favourited/reblogged multiple parodies of the AOTFFW poster. So the AOTFFW poster isn't reasonably representative of the sort of artwork commonly produced/enjoyed by macrophiles ... but "the three most prominent macrophilic artists" you specifically highlighted all produce and/or enjoy artwork comparable to the AOTFFW poster. Do you see the problem with what you're arguing here?

Anyway, most of the rest of your reply is irrelevant to this main point, and is probably better suited to being discussed in a different section about the scope of the article (whether "macrophilia" should also directly include the non-sexualised G/t community, or whether they should be considered separately). I think the best way forward here would be to start proposing a new set of potential lead images to see if we can decide on something better than the current AOTFFW poster. I'm personally not convinced that the public domain Alice in Wonderland images would be a better fit (even if not sexualised, underage content should probably be avoided), but I guess we'd need to post them up and have a chat about them.

Sizeposter (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Reasoning moving previously lead image into history

The poster is very significant and singularly very impactful to the sexual macrophilia community HISTORICALLY, thusly belongs in the history section. I would certainly revert any change to remove it. In fact, even without any image in the lead (which is fine), having outside of the history section would probably be very confusing to newcomers who will get the impression that macrophiliacs don't make any art of their own, even though that's primarily what macrophiliacs do.

(make their own art based on their own interest)

I don't want to come off aggressive with my edits, however I think the point in bold is fair enough to at least move the image.
Eaterjolly (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I reverted. The Interest section is not really a History section, and I can't see any valid reason for it to be called "History." And as for the lead image, per WP:LEADIMAGE, the lead image is fine. It is not easy to find a lead image that represent this topic, and at least that image suffices. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, this is a very small article; so moving the image a little below doesn't have much effect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Le Sighes I actually only realized the section wasn't "history" only after posting this whole monologue.


I hate to admit it, but that isn't really a history section either.
The article is a mess with bias from my opinion, nor would re-writing that as a history section be effortless.


The image isn't representative; it's only notable as an early rallying symbol and inspiration for a large vocal fraction of the macrophiliac community.
The poster is very significant historically, however being what pops up in searches that embed wikipedia articles, would give an inaccurate impression that excludes the very significant G|T fraction of the community (that impression being this fascination with giants only exists to service extreme violence and sexual fantasies, so extreme they require exaggeration beyond what's physically possible to be satisfied 'what a cult of pleebs').
I'll keep updating my userified fork, and if I can find more reliable sources hopefully we all can discuss a merge.
I re-iterate anyone is welcome to involve themselves in that endeavor.
Eaterjolly (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Eaterjolly, you have not demonstrated how this small article is "a mess with bias." As has been stated before, this topic is not well-studied and we can only go by what WP:Reliable sources state, and we must adhere to WP:Due weight. I know that there are things you want to add to the article based on your experience with the macrophilia community and/or unreliable sources, but we can't do that. As for the image, WP:LEADIMAGE is clear that it is not always possible to find a representative image. I don't feel strongly about the image, but readers do respond better to articles with lead images, and the aforementioned lead image suffices for this topic in that it shows a gigantic woman on a poster and it is something macrophiles are sexually drawn to. What do you mean by "early rallying symbol and inspiration for a large vocal fraction of the macrophiliac community"? Do you mean "extreme violence and sexual fantasies"? I didn't think of violence when looking at the image, but now I see what you mean on the violent part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe the existence of those communities I mentioned is evidence of bias.
Alice in Wonderland and Gulliver's Travels are typically referred to as associated with macrophilia in many sources, yet neither of those stories are the least bit sexual.
I agree that the article has to be updated properly, and I don't expect any one in particular to help or furthermore in any particular ways. All I ask is WP:GOODFAITH from those who wish to look for ways to contribute believing me that, albeit difficult to find, reliable sources explaining Macrophilia from the perspective of an art movement MUST exist.
Eaterjolly (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Information: asexual /// non-sexual Giant | Tiny

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Art:

Classic Fiction:

Eaterjolly (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you proposing? On a side note: We typically don't use the Daily Mail on this site anymore. Well, I mean that it's routinely removed by some experienced editors following a big RfC we had on it. Also, there's no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist; simply replying is enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure, I just found keywords that returned a lot size-related art news stories.
The Rfc led me to a clever video illustrating the problem. That article was fairly empty anyway.
Off-topic:
I'm excited for wikitribune. Personally most of my news comes from wide micro-sampling then making character inferences based on mostly headlines, lead paragraphs, and early portions of videos as well as skim details, section titles, news scrolls, captions, and of course memes. I'll seek out indepth analyses on similar situations or the situation/figure in question if I feel I've been wrong or clueless. That's certainly not acceptable for a wikipedia article, as it shouldn't, however I feel people would get more accurate news if they tested it by seeing how thoughtful conclusions from a limited sample of "facts" change when the sample size is increased. I digress too much, but I'll end by saying I believe if the conclusions don't change that much the journalism wasn't very rigorous.
Eaterjolly (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Male Dominance of Macrophilia Fetish?

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Hi Flyer22 Frozen. I see you reverted my edits to the Macrophilia page. My edits were a first attempt to fix a very troubling problem in the original version. That is, the erasure of the female presence within the sizeplay community. You stated in your reversion, "This is overwhelmingly a male thing, like the vast majority of sexual fetishes/paraphilias." I would ask you to site your source that most sexual fetishes are a "male thing." This page has a number of problems, including that it is poorly sourced, poorly researched, and, with regards to most fetishes, difficult to describe in full. Why is it necessary for you to keep this as a "male thing?" My edit was merely an attempt to make the subject material more inclusive, and correct a poorly researched description of a fetish through an entirely male-dominated perspective that, frankly, dominates most of western culture.

I would ask, are you a member of this community? Do you have first-hand experience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudocleverr (talk • contribs) 04:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You're changing sourced text - and a direct quote - based on your personal opinion. Follow the WP:RS. Salon says, "Simply put, male macrophiles -- and almost all macros are men -- get turned on by giant women." Psychology Today states, "The overwhelming majority of macrophiles are thought to be heterosexual males that are sexually attracted to female giantesses." The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women on Screen source, before you changed it, is quoted as saying, "the erotic obsession with such large women is labeled "macrophilia"". So yes, "more commonly" giantesses, and "typically a male fantasy", are correct. Crossroads -talk- 05:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The important thing to bear in mind when citing "experts" is there are none. It's fine to cite the speculation of experts, but it must be made clear that no formal studies have ever been made. Dr. Helen Friedman is a child psychologist, not a parasexual researcher, who is commenting off the cuff rather than citing any responsible research. Davy Kraken, "Macrophilia 101"[2], dismisses Friedman's conjecture from a boots-on-the-street perspective. Dr. Mark Griffith's specialty is gambling and compulsive behavior, and his "Beginner's Guide to Macrophilia"[3] and "One Giant Step for Man"[4] are nothing more than his personal musings. If a man sees macrophilia as a male-dominated genre, it bears questioning whether minority voices have historically been excluded and silenced, rather than touting him as a legitimate authority. It's very different to collect the voices of the participants rather than solicit the uninformed opinion of outsiders. AborigenGTS (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC) AborigenGTS

I think we can probably resolve this through a "Gender Representation" sub-heading, moving a number of the sources about predominance of male interest in the fetish there. I agree with Aborigen here that finding formal research is difficult. A 1999 Salon article with an interview of a male internet community head is hardly a reliable source. Many internet communities are male-dominated by participation. Wikipedia itself has that issue. I'm concerned that we're simply creating a feedback loop of gender bias here, of the sort that has been an ongoing problem for the internet at large. The Psychology Today article notes in several places that academic research is lacking, and that it may be reporting information anecdotally. I note also that the 1999 edition of "Deviant Desires" by Katherine Gates is referenced - see footnote 6, [5] The 2017 edition contains numerous interviews with female macrophiles, on the shifting gender dynamics within the community. In any case: there's no reason to list the default gender and roles right at the top of the article. The sub-heading I'm proposing would contain both the traditional view, along with citations, and also summarize with citation recent movements in terms of gender representation within online communities. Fair? Pseudocleverr (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Pseudocleverr, no, not fair. Per what Crossroads stated above and what has been stated on this matter times before, we will not be adding fake neutrality to this article. Like I stated on your talk page: Per WP:Neutral, what is neutral in common discuss is not what being neutral on Wikipedia means. I told you when you reverting you the first time that "The literature on this, what little there is on it, is clear. This is overwhelmingly a male thing, like the vast majority of sexual fetishes/paraphilias." You replied by stating that it's an opinion. Um, no, sir. To repeat, "Researchers studying paraphilias/sexual fetishes have found time and time again that it is overwhelmingly a male thing. I care not for your personal opinion of wishing that women were the same way."
As for the level of sourcing on this topic, there is not much on it. So we work with what we have. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
As for citing my sources on paraphilias overwhelmingly being a male thing, Googling the matter is easy. But do see Talk:Paraphilia/Archive 6#Sex Differences. I could ask sexologist/psychologist James Cantor to comment here, but he would reiterate what I've stated, just like he did at the Paraphilia talk page. As for mentioning the gender disparity in the lead, relaying in the lead what is lower in the article complies with WP:Lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22 Frozen. In the first place, as stated in my edit summary, my edit was a revert of my own action. As per WP:EW Exemptions rule #1, this action is not considered warring. Your revert of my edit does not have this exemption. I will allow your version to stand for the time being, as I'm working on a more comprehensive rewrite which will follow site guidelines.

Second, I would ask that you considers the comments above by AborigenGTS. To summarize: the current sourcing of male dominance within the fetish community is not well-cited. It is based primarily from quotes by internet community organizers that are upwards of twenty years old, and psychologists speaking outside their area of expertise. As has been documented, women are often under-represented in online sex-based communities. From the linked article: "This ongoing discussion struggles to acknowledge the fact that women are themselves consumers of pornography and that social stigma, restricted modes of access and a lack of ‘women-oriented’ material (rather than a lack of interest) have been reasons why women have not been such ‘visible’ porn consumers." (This is true of many online communities, including, as has been well-documented, Wikipedia itself.) SizeCon, an annual real-world gathering of macrophiles, was co-founded by a woman, and a substantial portion of the attendees are not men. And as I stated in my previous comment, the updated 2017 edition of "Deviant Desires" makes mention of women in the fetish, and their increasing rates of participation. (A copy of this edition is on its way to me at the moment.)

Finally: even if the conventional wisdom of male-dominance were true, it seems unnecessarily prescriptive and hostile to exclude women from the fetish in the first paragraph - and even in the first sentence of the article. This seems designed to make the problem of female exclusion worse. You wouldn't start an article about, say, sports cars, by mentioning in the first sentence that most owners and enthusiasts are men. A more relevant example, from a much better-maintained Wiki on human sexuality: Dominance and Submission. The fact that men more commonly play dominant roles and women submissive, is not mentioned in the introduction. Gender role pronouns are described, but their frequency left ambiguous.

As I said, I'm working on something more comprehensive. I will retain information about the conventional male domination of the fetish. I will not remove any current citations. I will also describe the weakness of these sources, add my own (including those here listed,) and leave open the question about gender participation based on contradicting information. I will play by the rules, and act in good faith, so that we can come to a consensus. I only ask that you do the same.

And also: linking to a comment you made on another account on a different talk page is not a "citation." It would even seem to suggest that, if you've had this disagreement on Wikipedia before, that you are not coming from a neutral point of view.Pseudocleverr (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines you are pointed to and follow them. If you won't edit war any further, then good. You edit warred by reverting me and then Crossroads. That is edit warring. Although I reverted you twice, with significant time between the reverts, the WP:ONUS is not on me. It's on you. You've been reverted by two different editors thus far.
I thank you for taking the time to discuss. That stated, while I may hear you out on wording that doesn't downplay the facts, or even on rearrangement, I don't think I will be debating any of this again. I've been over this matter times before on this talk page. The archives are linked at the top. For this matter, I really see nothing to debate when it comes to the gender prevalence. The literature regarding paraphilias being significantly more common among men than among women is abundantly clear. That is not a debate. It is not something that can be attributed to underrepresentation. As seen at Talk:Macrophilia/Archive 2#Compilation: Best Sources, Primary, underrepresentation has also been addressed. I stated back then that "Even with women possibly being underreported as fetishists or as having a paraphilia, experts are clear that men would be the majority of the subjects either way." You mentioned porn. Back then, I stated, "As for porn [...], research has consistently shown that teenage girls and women prefer romance novels or erotica to porn; this has been cited by some researchers as 'men being more visual creatures' than women, and so on. This is not to state, however, that a lot of women don't watch porn; a lot of them do. But like this 2011 Time piece citing researchers states, 'Women prefer stories to visual porn by a long shot. The most popular erotica for women is the romance novel. That has more punch than any other kind of erotica. The second most popular would be fan fiction. This is something that has really exploded on the Internet. These are stories written by amateurs, mostly women, about characters from pop culture, movies, books, etc.' The source then goes on to explain the sex differences."
I pointed you to a discussion that cites sources. Not only did James Cantor, who is not just another account (but also an expert on paraphilias and, according to some sources, the world's foremost expert on parpahilias), provide citations, I pointed to academic sources that are easily found on the matter and cited one. I do not need to be told that "linking to a comment [I] made on another account on a different talk page is not a 'citation.'" But you need to be told again that Wikipedia's WP:Neutrality policy is different than what "neutral" means in common discourse.
The sourcing? So because the sourcing on macrophilia is lacking, we should not stick to what the sources state and be lax with the wording? We should water down the wording, with words like "may"? We shouldn't report in the lead (or lower in the article) that this paraphilia is mostly a male thing? We should doubt that it is, when the research on it thus far indicates that it's mainly a male thing and when researchers like Cantor have consistently found that paraphilias are mainly a male thing? No to all of that. Per WP:Original research, including its WP:Synthesis section, you are not allowed to "describe the weakness of these sources" in the article. Not unless the sources explicitly state that. You should also review WP:Reliable sources. I don't want to see you citing any blog sources unless they fall under WP:NEWSBLOG.
You mentioned AborigenGTS and somehow, as a new account relativlely new editor (despite the age of your account), thought to WP:Ping them. That is a non-new editor using a new account. The editor popped up out of nowhere to comment on this barely active talk page. The account is highly suspicious. Not only do WP:Socks pop up just like that in discussions like this, I have stalkers who follow me and pop up out of nowhere with WP:Sock accounts. I could have a WP:CheckUser look into this. Either way, I very much doubt that I am debating all of this again. I don't think that I am going to sit here and pile a bunch of academic sources in a collapse box (or out of one) proving my point on the rarity of paraphilias among women when the literature on that is easily found and I've debated this topic enough. As for providing sources on macrophilia specifically? As you know, the literature on it is scarce. I am not even convinced that this topic needs its own Wikipedia page; see WP:No page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

If evidence is scant one way or another the preferred method is to default to the most vocal bias? Or, alternatively, to take away an entire wikipedia page due to a difference of opinion? The primary convention for size paraphilia has seen a sizeable female presence. As staff for that convention I have the hard numbers to back this up. When women feel like their voice will be respected and not talked over by men, their participation in discussion of paraphilia goes up. Sizecon is very clear in its non-discrimination policy, and it has been the impetus for many women (myself included) to open up about something that they would have otherwise kept to themselves. The data on this is scant because this has only started to pick up fairly recently, and we are soon to see an influx of published material supporting this. But even supposing that this us a predominantly male thing, why must anything outside of that not be mentioned on this page at all? In the interest of providing an accurate overview, more than one specific permutation should be referrenced. And it is incredibly easy to go on various art and social media sites and find a plethora of female content creators. We are here, we deserve representation. You do not need to continue to have this discussion, and the fact that you've had to have it several times means further proves that there is credence to changing the male biased language. Management of this page is better left to people actively familiar with the content of this article and its community. DivineRobyn (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

And yet another WP:Sock. Sigh. Will have WP:CheckUsers look into this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
And let me also make clear that meatpuppetry will not be tolerated. Pointing editors here from forums will get you nowhere. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, I really don't understand the conflict here. New information has emerged to contradict what was, by your own admission, already a very weak set of sources. There are new editions of published material that challenge several statements within this article - while editions that are twenty-one years out of date continue to be cited. Many of the current citations are extremely weak, based on personal opinion of non-experts. They're decades old. And, while you cite sources that fetishization is male dominated, I cite others that say this may be a mistake, based on poor tools of a past era. I don't want to erase the status quo. I don't want to override that past era. I want to continue to mention it, alongside new information. Isn't that exciting to you, as a person who pursues knowledge? We might be learning something!

I will admit, my original edit changed a quote from a source, which I then corrected in good faith - please forgive an old man, because that was a error. As a person navigating a complicated site from a bygone era, I made a mistake. Otherwise, I've done nothing but change some gendered language in the opening paragraph to more neutral wording, to include other identities than the default, and to help address gender bias that exists across the internet and in Wikipedia. See my previous talk comment. Likewise, I don't think I need to cite sources that gender discrimination exists. Neutrality may not have the same standards on Wikipedia as it does on the internet as large, but can you point me to a policy that requires we actually hang a "Boys Only" club at the door? Moreover, the - from our sources - mostly unprovable gender statistics, seem highly irrelevant compared to the bulk of the article, which is about what the thing is, and not who it is that participates.

The fact that you are responding in such a visceral manner to such a minor change is telling. I have, to this point, edited precisely thirteen words. Meanwhile, you personally have fought this battle about gender expression in sex, again and again, across multiple accounts and pages, in ways that have created a great deal of conflict in your wake. You have a history. Your involvement here reads like bad faith to me. You're also rules lawyering pretty hard for a person defending a minor edit of a third-rate page. It feels like you're trying to scare off new editors, to keep an extremely weakly cited and frankly unnecessary statement at the very very tip-top of the page. Your behavior feels like harassment. I'm here as a good wikipedian, trying to improve this page. You seem to be fighting a turf war.

If I make good improvements that are well-cited, and you revert because they don't meet your unnecessary and, by public record, personal criteria? That will most certainly be edit warring. There is no reason for the first thing people see when they come to this site to be a gender breakdown. Even if the gender disparity can be proven empirically, which again, by our sources it can't, I highly doubt it needs to be discussed in the very first sentence.

Maybe in the fifth.

I believe you yourself have been accused of sockpuppetry in the past. No one has been persuaded or encouraged to be here. But your practice of imposing your beliefs on this site, putting your thumb on the scale where it need not be, is causing harm. If a news article drives many new editors toward a site, their voices are certainly down-regulated per WP:Sockpuppetry. But if those voices are here in good faith, and cite their sources? They aren't intended to be silenced by one gatekeeper, who is intent on ignoring new evidence.

I will continue to abide by community standards in good faith. Do the same, and I will continue to offer you the olive branch. I want to work with you here. We can make this page stub of a page better, together. But your agenda of making sure that, first thing, everyone knows "This is overwhelmingly a male thing"? That has to stop.

Utterly and entirely off topic. Does the name "Jae" mean anything to you?

Pseudocleverr (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Long sigh. You clearly don't understand how things work here and I'm not explaining further. You speak of agendas when I am following the literature with WP:Due weight and you and these socks/meatpuppets are challenging it. New evidence? What? You stated, "And, while [I] cite sources that fetishization is male dominated, [you] cite others that say this may be a mistake, based on poor tools of a past era." You have not. As if a few sources suggesting otherwise trumps what the preponderance of sources on paraphilia state anyway. It's not just 20-year-old sources that make it clear that paraphilias are overwhelmingly found among men.
We aren't playing dumb here when it comes to socks and meatpuppets. I spot them and they are blocked...eventually. Do not bring up my "sock" case, as if it is remotely the same. You stated, "Meanwhile, you personally have fought this battle about gender expression in sex, again and again, across multiple accounts and pages, in ways that have created a great deal of conflict in your wake. You have a history. Your involvement here reads like bad faith to me." What? Not only is that off, how exactly would you know this? The more you talk, the more you reveal about your experience editing this site despite the very few edits you've made. You are here to push an agenda, plain and simple. And it will not be happening. You will be blocked first.
Do not keep pinging me to a talk page I am obviously watching. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Pseudocleverr, the way you speak about Flyer22 Frozen above suggests you have formed a strong opinion about her editing history, which is odd for a user who has not interacted with her before this. Since two brand new accounts have appeared out of nowhere to back you up, it is hard for me to avoid suspecting that meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry is occurring here. Getting back to the article material, I'm not seeing above where sources were offered that said something about macrophilia contrary to the existing sources that this is most common among men or that it typically is about giantesses. Saying those things is very different from saying that it is always men or giantesses; so of course there are some women who have this interest. But the current sources are clear that it is mostly men. Crossroads -talk- 02:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I continue to try to be friendly here. What exactly are we fighting about?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying: "There are citations that state this fetish is held by majority men."

And I'm saying, "That may be the case, but it isn't important enough to be stated in the first two sentences of this article, because this seems not to be the standard for other articles about activities, sexual or otherwise, which have gender disparities. Since by your own admission it's poorly cited, lets move it down further in the article, expand on it, and include new and updated sources which may cast doubt on this." See comment 

in this thread beginning with your name followed by "In the first place, as stated in my edit summary," in which there are several new sources which I have linked, including an academic journal.  These, among others, I would include in a future edit.

I am able to see that you've had multiple accounts litigating this same issue, because you've linked to them in this discussion. Crossroads that answers your first question.

What have I done that warrants a block? Threatening to have me blocked based on nothing but an attempt to improve the page, an error which I then corrected, and being drawn to this page by current event news, feels inflammatory. Re: new users on this page. They have contributed to the talk section, and not attempted to edit the page. I suspect they were also drawn by current event news. Per WP:Sockpuppetry and the sub-section on Meatpuppetry, I see no rule stating that these users aren't allowed to be present, or that their comments on a talk page are problematic. Certainly if things came to a vote, we wouldn't go by simple majority rule. But can you cite a rule that says they aren't allowed to speak? Crossroads that addresses your second.

But okay.

Folks. Stop reading for a second. Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Please, really do it.

I really want to de-escalate this situation. So I ask again: this thousands-word debate is based off an extremely, extremely minor edit. Currently nothing has changed. What I propose to change is also minor. Why are we fighting?

What would be a workable solution for you, to incorporate these new and updated sources?

Pseudocleverr (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen never linked to other accounts of hers, and there is no reason to think she has any. Also, I looked and don't see any recent news about macrophilia. Anyway, please quote what the sources you keep mentioning are saying about macrophilia that contradicts the sources I quoted above. The sources have to talk about macrophilia per WP:Synthesis. Crossroads -talk- 02:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Your total number of edits is 34, and since 20 November 2019 you have made only 15 edits, all of them to this article or its talk. Please get some experience working with other articles before insisting on changes here. Also, posts on this page should be brief and focused on an actionable proposal to change the article based on reliable sources. If a proposal does not have consensus, it will not occur. Votes from "new" users will not be effective. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm personally still largely unsure what is wrong with showing the entire picture of the situation. The majority of Libya's landmass is desert, but the geography section on that page mentions the parts that aren't. Even if we are to assume this is "largely a male thing" why does that mean no other perspectives should be mentioned? In any other description of a demographic, say for instance a country's populatuon, it would not just be the majority that gets mentioned. There would be a breakdown of the full demographic. Its impossible for me to stay silent on this issue anymore. Its the silence of women that has allowed this perception that its "largely a male thing" to go on as long as it has. It is hard to accurately gauge the makeup of a community if the culture in that community pressures people into silence. I advocate for women to self-actualize and in 20 years of experience on the subject, I have seen a rise in the amount of women vocal about their interest in macrophilia, either as self-identifying as macro, or expressing an interest in male giants, or even women expressing an interest in female giants. People who were isolated from each other and made to feel that no one else feels this way, who have only recently found harrassment-free environments to connect in. Rather than having wikipedia say that people like them objectively don't exist enough to bear mention does a disservice. Blanket statements about the full breadth and scope of paraphilia cannot be applied as objective fact in every single instance. Asserting that men fantasizing about women is the only manifestation of macrophilia worth mentioning is a lot more disingenuous than mentioning that people who engage in macrophilia differently dare to exist, even if it is in conflict with a source that can only be applied here in a very general, vague sense. I will make no attempts to edit, I have no insistence on making an edit war. But there is a discussion page here, and I will use it to advocate for a more nuanced page. I just don't see why using inclusive language does anything wrong here. DivineRobyn (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Talking about harassment, new accounts should not be created to stir trouble on Wikipedia. It hasn't worked in the past and it won't work in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What trouble is being caused? I have no intention to disadvantage anyone, I am adding to a discussion that exists. Is it against the rules to have a discussion in a talk page? I am just trying to understand why there is opposition to making the language more inclusive, it seems like a harmless edit to make. DivineRobyn (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macrophilia/Archive_2&oldid=994919195"