Talk:Milk fetishism/Archive

Article replaced

The entire useable article content is moved to Erotic lactation now. Therefore this page isn't longer needed as I think and therefore I've set the Redirector to Erotic lactation. If any of You like do add or change something, please do this at the new page. The new article has been (compared with the old one) completely restructured, but as much as possible content of the old article is included. Important for the new article was, to get it more scientific and to overcome speculative statements. For example any psychoanalytic theory is highly problematic... Many Thanks to all people who layed the foundations with the old article and all the people who helped to create and correct the new one, which has a very good quality now as I think. --Fritz Bollmann 08:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Article replacement

This article is planned to become a simple forwarder to the article Erotic Lactation. For expansions, corrections and so on use the article Erotic Lactation only.

--Fritz Bollmann 11:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion with intrest, both here and on the Yahoo group SNClist. I support the terminology "Erotic Lactation" as a more accurate term for this type of activity. This is not a disease and should not be described as such here. Read the comment on Adult Breastfeeding and Survival to learn more. Mlklvr 11:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Generic term discussion

In some Yahoo groups there was a longer discusion concerning to the -fetishism and -philia terms, for example in groups.yahoo.com/group/snclist/. The terms fetishism and -philia as well as Paraphilia describe disorders in scientific use. According to DSM-IV and ICD-10 "-fetish" and "-philia" (as well as Paraphilia) for adult breastfeeding doesn't match the requirements of the DSM-IV and ICD-10 definitions. The result is, the terms are misused and suggest a disorder in public use, which is not wished.

Therefore there was a longer discussion about a usefull replacement word in the discussion groups. After words such as "adlactation" and similiar have been refused in the german Wikipedia, as an alternative now the term "Erotic lactation"/"Erotic breastfeeding" is used. See here: "Erotisches Stillen". All (?) woman and men involed in erotic breastfeeding and both experts estimated this as the best possible term.

I urge You to change any -philia and -fetish word to erotic breastfeeding or erotic lactation as fast as possible.

Thank You, Fritz Bollmann :-)

Article renaming

Could the article have a better title? "Milk fetishism" was probably an accurate title when the original text was merely a stub as a logical link from another section, but the article has grown. Suggestions? If anything to disambiguate it from other kinds of milk. The idea here is that this is something female women do, not something you pick up at the shops.

I think you're missing the grammar of the article title. "Fetishism" is the noun being modified by the adjective "milk." What you are suggesting is that milk fetishism might be confused with almond milk or breast milk. I think the nature of the titles makes it clear what is being discussed. Besides, there is already precedent for the current title. (see shoe fetishism or balloon fetishism) - CloudedIce 08:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The object of the fetish refered in the article is the act of breastfeeding, not the milk. Is not the same as with shoe or baloons where the center of the fetish is the object perse, shoes or baloons. Here there is no response to the milk alone, but to the act of breastfeeding. I think that the article should be renamed adult Breastfeeding fetishism. ---TerminusX 05:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Lactation fetish" may be a better name, according to Google

• "breastfeeding fetish": 664 pages
• "lactation fetish": 32,300 pages
• "milk fetish": 15,600 pages.

These phrases are just off the top of my head; if anyone else has some additional possible names, please add them. The Honorable 19:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

See above - Paraphilia or fetish is misused by the definition of these terms. In Germany they are not longer used and replaced by "Erotic Breastfeeding" or "Erotic Lactation". Same discussin in the (english) SNCLIST group. -Fritz Bollmann

As a participant in an Adult Nursing Relationship, I strenuously object to the -fetish language. In fact, when my partner & I are nursing, it is a non-sexual activity....while being very intimate & sensual, we rarely begin or follow up a nursing session with intercourse. I would prefer a simple generic term such as "Adult Nursing Relationships" or "Adult Breastfeeding Relationship" to allow information about the non-erotic/non-sexual side of the ANR to be appreciated.---S.B.

Only someone who is ignorant about the nature of Adult Breastfeeding or an Adult Nursing Relationship could classify it as a fetish. The emphasis is on ADULT, there is nothing infantile about it when consenting adults engage in breastfeeding. It's simply a way to reach more intense intimacy with or without sex. It's not about milk or being a baby, but about sharing more, sharing on a deeper level. Someone who is not familiar with the practice whould not be able to define it.--Christine T.

Adult Breastfeeding & Survival

I think there should be a seperate or expanded topic on "Adult Nursing Relationships" or "Adult Breastfeeding" commonly referred to as ANR or ABF in the on-line groups that support them, like the SNC, the Society of Nursing Couples. I have written "Successful Adult Nursing" and "Successful Nursing Techniques" which is posted on their website. There is a lot of information available on this subject, both fact and fiction. I would like to contribute, but it appears that I am involved in original research, which is prohibited on this site.

There is a segment of the Adult Nursing Community who believe Adult Breastfeeding dates back to the early development of the human species, and that maintaining a lactation response within an Adult Nursing Relationship is not as difficult as believed.

The theory is that primitive men sought lactating women for supplemental nourishment during seasonal or winter famine; and that women maintained their milk supply for most of their adult lives. Women store fat easier than men, women have slower metabolisms than men, and women can initiate lactation independent of pregnancy or childbirth. This theory embraces the metabolic differences between men and women and gives a lone male hunter a practical survival reason for keeping and protecting a woman in the wilderness. It ties details of lactation, bonding, fertility, pregnancy, miscarriage, childbirth and infant mortality into the overall survival equation. It promotes the notion that Adult Breastfeeding is a survival tool unique to our species and is more about survival instincts and bonding than it is about sexual gratification or fetish. It also explains why human females have enlarged breasts, why men are attracted to female breasts, why lactation promotes infertility, why women often have too much milk after childbirth, and why the emotions generated within Adult Nursing Relationships are so powerful. If this theory is viable, then there is room for another topic. go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snclist/ to learn more. Mlklvr 11:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Transitional psychology

Some addressing of transitional ideation in the "whore/madonna" complex could improve the female motivation section; as women become parents of newborns, ejecting milk during the recomencement of sexual activity often happens. Some women are embarassed by it while others embrace it as an expression of a more fully expressed female sexuality that bridges states of mind. The focus of the article should be less about mechanics. It is common for husbands and wives to lose interest in sex with each other, their marriages becoming fairly asexual, once the children are born. The article should address how lactation can empower women to bridge multiple states of gendered identity in their own minds, the worst prisons in which men keep them.

I agreee with changing the focus of the article. Specific steps for inducing lactation and the drugs that assist in lactation probably are more suited in the lactation article itself, especially since that article is lacking in content. - CloudedIce 08:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it might just be better to remove those last three sections altogether. Most, if not all, of the information in the last two sections is located in the breastfeeding article, and the "stimulating lactation" section does not belong in Wikipedia. Afterall, wikipedia is not an instruction manual. However, I think that would be acceptable if someone wanted to put a link to instructions on stimulating lactation in the external links section. - CloudedIce 08:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

The section on gender idenfication for women at the top could use some expanding and general development.

Non-existent diseases?

The article claims Reglan causes Tardive Dyskinesia, Acute Dystonic Reaction andExtrapyramidal Symptoms but Wikipedia has no entries on this subject.

While there may not be Wikipedia articles about it (haven't looked for myself, I'm just taking your word for it), a quick google search turned up confirmation that it may indeed cause all of those. I'll add in a quick link, but try to clean it up later. - CloudedIce 08:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

re Deletion of "how to" info & Groups

• Wikipedia does not generally provide "how to" information, nor give medical advice. Therefore it certainly should not be advising on dosage of medications (i.e. Domperdone or Metoclopramide) that is off-label used (a term normally meaning a doctor prescribing for an indication other than that licensed for, rather than the public obtaining without a prescription).
• As to comments on types of pumps, like all information in wikipedia it must be possible to WP:Cite from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verify, remember policy WP:No original research.
• Wikipedia is not a contact forum, and blogs or discussion forums are generally inappropriate to link to. I guess Tregoweth reverted back to 85.210.13.95 for their same reason of "remove yahoo group spam" - remember generally one should not add links to site one is either the author of involved with personally: WP:Reliable source states "A personal website (either operated by one individual or a group of individuals) or blog" ... "should not be used as secondary sources". Multiple such links to yahoo groups seems to be in breach of "Adding many links to (or mentions of) the same site or product" under WP:Spam
  • Linking to it is not the same as using it as a source for the article, which is what it's acutally talking about. I have seen may links to blogs on Wikipedia. As for the same site arguably they are NOT the same site, they're different groups that happen to use the same (free) server. Anon! 13:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• {{Fact}} tags are inserted when a fact or assertion needs a citation (from a reliable source) to verify. Please do not remove these tags, without addressing the issue (either provide the requested citatiuon verification, or discuss why inappropriate to do so on the talk page first).David Ruben ^Talk 08:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• • But rest of information is your personal statements - as you have failed to cite evidence to support notability of facts (relevant policies as linked above). Merely reverting over another editors request with {{Fact}} tags is disruptive.
  • You have now reverted to your version against 3 editors, and to do so within 24hours is in violation of WP:3RR. I had previously posted a welcome message to your talk page that points new users to Wikipedia:Five pillars where this is discussed - I have therefore reported the violation.

    Appology to Anon! - as pointed out on 3RR notification - you had only reverted x3 and so had not broken 3RR limit. David Ruben ^Talk 01:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Someone else will need to decide for now whether to re-reverted back; as I am both close to 3RR (although technically beyond 24hr) and given I instigated 3RR violation report. David Ruben ^Talk 19:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add a comment about the how-to info: The article is supposed to be about milk fetishism, not inducing lactation. That's a bit like an article about breast fetishism giving tips on increasing your cleavage—it's related, but not really the point of the article. —tregoweth (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a middle ground would be more appropriate. Some of the how-to aspects of the article appear to be excessive and outside the scope of Wikipedia, but at the same time, it would be of interest to note that metoclopramide has been used (though a reliable source would be helpful in validating this claim). Andrew73 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

mother baby breastfeeding

What about guys who have a thing for watching women breastfeed their babies? Are these guys dangerous? --Gbleem 16:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Answer: No.

Sez who?

The article states "It is not uncommon for heterosexual women to experiment with nursing." Do we have a citation for this?

what girl doesn't like their tits being sucked in sex? ha.

Merge from Erotic Lactation

I vote yes. Both articles seem to discuss essentially the same thing, though the Erotic Lactation article is rather poorly written. Whatever it adds to the topic might as well be included here. Robotman1974 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the opposite way!!! - As mentioned above we are just on to move from Milk fetishism to Erotic Lactation. Therefore: Why Your present suggestion?! Please please read the articles and their discussions because Your desire is very counterproductive in content.

The term (lemma) reasons are mentioned above. The terms Milk fetishism (and Lactophilia) don't match the regulations DSM-IV and ICD-10 and are therefore unacceptable in scientific use. The term Erotic Lactation in contrast fits to all requirements, is useable as generic term and neutral above. It was a long way to this term.

Some of You know me and my research from the SNCLIST. The "Milk fetishism" article has some bigger quality problems not only in the term but both in content. One of the problem was the use of speculative statements and explanations. The new Erotic Lactation article is currently shorter, but much more accurately, more systmaticly and so on and will expand in next future. The reason for the current initial misspelling is: I'm not a native english-speaker. But on the other hand I know a lot about erotic lactation and it's research. Periodicly native-english people will help to correct my misspellings.

Special thanks from me to TerminusX, The Honorable, CloudedIce, Mlklvr, Anon!, David Ruben, tregoweth, Andrew73 and all nameless authors and discussing people.

--Fritz Bollmann 20:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that at most a renaming of this article had been discussed. I can't see that a consensus of any kind was reached on that. If the article is to be renamed however, than it is being done the wrong way. The entire article must be moved to another title in order to preserve both the content and edit history and discussion. I do not know enough about moving articles to say much more, so I will ask for help on this issue. Robotman1974 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Help:Moving a page for more information. Robotman1974 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good that it's possible to speak ;-) - Moving the article isn't the best choose here. It was good to start an article about this subject, but sometimes it's better to demolish a house, then to renovate it. The new approach is more scientific-empiric with leaving room for other wishes, the existing old article rather hardly to adapt for this. Both is true for the discussion page. Most content (term discusions) becomes superfluous and the other hints can be done or are simply to copy. I think, the result will be much better in this way.

BTW: Sorry or the hard words, I was terrified - but this is superfluous because You are not one of the guys who shoot and disappear ;-)

--Fritz Bollmann 21:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of which title this topic is under, it is good to see that it's getting some of the work it deserves. I have to disagree with your house demolition analogy though. As far as I understand it, starting new articles and deleting old ones to update information is opposite from the way things are done on Wikipedia. There are many issues regarding the edit history and related discussions that make Wikipedia's standard page moving policy very important to adhere to. I don't doubt that your intentions are to improve this topic, but it must be done according to the methods already agreed upon by the community of Wikipedia editors. Please read Help:Moving a page to familiraise yourself with the policy. I will do the same. Robotman1974 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem?! - The article Erotic Lactation is fabulous better! --visitora

Please re-read my comments above. My objection is not with the title or the article contents but with the way the move is being handled. I've made additional comments here. Robotman1974 22:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Erotic Lactation has now been re-written in its entirety. It makes far better reading than before. And it gives links to additional source material, which the article Milk fetishism does give not. However, some valuable material from the Milk fetishism article could be included into the Erotic Lactation article. Amarcora 03:02, 12 October 2006

Request for comment

I have posted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. Robotman1974 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - From the talk pages, I gather that there are a few issues under discussion here, but I'm not exactly clear on which of those issues you'd like comment on - the possible merger, or issues with procedure and style? --Badger151 02:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The main issue I see that needs an outside comment is that the creation of the new page seems to be a way of moving Milk fetishism to Erotic Lactation. Recent changes - which I reverted - to the Paraphilia template show that this new article is indeed meant to replace the old one. I think that two essentially duplicate pages aren't needed, and that this should be done first as a page move, then as a re-write of the article - all according to Wikipedia standards. I approve of the enthusiasm and initiative that Fritz Bollmann has for improving this topic, but I do take issue with the way it's being done. Some statements he has made, such as "This article is planned to become a simple forwarder to the article Erotic Lactation. For expansions, corrections and so on use the article Erotic Lactation only." and "...sometimes it's better to demolish a house, then to renovate it." lead me to believe that Fritz is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's page move policies and the important reasons behind them. I also fear that my intent is being misunderstood, and so I will restate again here that I do not object to the content of the articles or to the new title of "Erotic lactation" that has been proposed. In fact, once the page move issue has been settled I can even assist in correcting grammar and spelling to help give the writing a more encyclopedic tone. Right now, some of the issues I had with style appear to be getting worked on by other editors, with the notable exception of the article's title. Specifically concerning that, am I right to say that the "L" should not be capitalised? Thank you for your assistance Badger151. Robotman1974 16:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer Game).

Based on this, I'd say that yes, unless erotic lactation generally has both words capitalized, then the proper title format would be Erotic lactation. More importantly, the wiki software, when faced with a multi-word link, will only capitalize the first letter of the first word when looking for the associated page. Consider Erotic Lactation as compared to Erotic lactation and erotic lactation; only the first link connects to the page. Capitalizing lactation will therefor create persistant linking issues (most likely a redirect page, though piped links would also probably be used) which will be frustrating for future editors. Finally, because of the convention, if the article title has lactation capitalized, then future editors may decapitalize lactation simply because they assume that the capitalization is an unintentional error. This will of course have to be reverted, so the maintenance of the page will be more complicated.

Am I correct in my understanding that no one objects to moving the "Milk fetishism" article to "Erotic lactation"? Am I further correct in my understanding that the issues are 1)the capitalization of the page's title, and 2)the way the move is being done? If this is the case, then I'll say that a history of page edits is very important in Wikipedia, as is the maintenance of the the associated talk pages. Replacement of one article with another doesn't allow for this to happen, so an article name change is typically done instead. At this point, though, we have two pages, so a merger might be better. If this is done, I would want to be sure to connect this talk page with that of "Erotic lactation", either by a link or by a clearly labeled copy-and-paste (maybe all of the copied text could be in another color, for instance, with this explained at the top of the section). --Badger151 20:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To answer the question "Am I correct in my understanding that no one objects to moving the "Milk fetishism" article to "Erotic lactation"?", I believe yes. I have no objections and from what I can see none of the current editors of these pages do either. To answer your next question, again yes. Those are basically my concerns. At this point, since Erotic Lactation seems to be steadily growing, I would now have no objection to Milk fetishism being merged into it, rather than the other way around as I first suggested. Since the policy on naming conventions is quite clear, I think that the new page Erotic lactation should now be created and the entire article Erotic Lactation be moved there and that page left as a redirect page. I will see what I can do about making sure the talk pages are clearly linked. Thanks for your help. Robotman1974 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Catch me on my talk page if I can be of further help. --Badger151 18:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops - the instructions at the Request for Comment page say that we should remove this page from the list when things are settled. Are we in a position to do that? --Badger151 23:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we are. Thanks again. Robotman1974 23:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)