Talk:Underwear fetishism

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	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.

Untitled

This is possibly the worst article on Wikipedia that I've ever seen. There are no mentions of jock straps, lycra, semitransparent underwear, or anything other than ladies underwear. For what little organization there is, there are tons of things out of place, and there is no mention of men wearing undergarments other than pantyhose, and those lucky men in pantyhose essentially get called queer. This entire article needs a rewrite. -74.100.71.49 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the worst article I've ever seen. In fact, I was impressed with the thoroughness that it covered the areas that it does cover. (Perhaps "Detailed, but limited in scope" would be a more equitable way to phrase it.) But, we all have our specific interests and knowledge, so I'm glad they entered theirs, and have left ample room for others of us to fill in with out specific (ahem) specialties. :-)

However, you do touch upon a couple of widely enjoyed areas of underwear fetishism, such as style (G-string, Jockstrap, Tanga_(clothing), Thong_(clothing), String-bikini, Bikini, Briefs, Boxer_briefs, Trunks_(clothing), Boxer_shorts, and Long_underwear...if we want to go in rough size-order...to name just a few of the major classes...) Then there are the fabrics: (lycra/spandex, sheer, translucent, mesh, etc...) These are all landmarks on the terrain of this particular landscape of fetishism, and there are MANY, MANY others.

However, as we can see, there are already many other pages in Wikipedia that address some of these items in their own space. (I was going to list some common ones like Panties, Hold-ups, Briefs, G-string, etc.... But while researching for this response, I've found the following excellent Category pages, which cover more than I ever imagined:

(Having some trouble getting these links to go into a formatted list, so I'll try just listing them out with comma separators. Maybe someone else will be able to figure it out.)

Also, it should be noted that a lot of this falls under the subject of Lingerie, (which is a very detailed page in its own right, as well as a category!) And these are still nested under the copious, colorful, and protective folds of the Undergarment page, which seems to be where everything else fits in.

So, there are nested-layers all over the place... Not surprising. :-)

Perhaps what we should focus on is cross-linking to the appropriate info where it already exists, and make sure that all pages are represented in the Category Pages. To that end, this page may need a more specific title, such as "Pantyhose Fetish", and it could then be slotted into a larger category/umbrella topic.

And all of that verbose preamble brings me to the main point I wanted to make when I began this: The Undergarment page covers all of the various styles, fabrics, and aspects, if not the specific fetish elements associated with each one. And specifically [this section of the Talk:Undergarment page] contains a lot of data and supporting links from some research I did a few months ago on the topic of the rapid growth (more like an explosion, actually) in the men's underwear market in the past 10 years or so. The number of designs, colors, patterns, styles, etc... has gone off the charts in a mind-boggling supernova of diversity. (Almost as if it's trying to make up for the decades that it lagged behind women's lingerie in choices & styles...)

And this brings me to the discussion point: The men's underwear market has become "mainstream" with the riot of new colors, fabrics, and styles. There are hundreds of different companies churning out new designs constantly. It is no longer marginalized to the niche realm of exotic fashion, nor is it solely the purview of the gay male community.

So I guess my question is: If everybody (or even a significant & growing portion of the population) is doing it, is it still a fetish? It could be that the very idea of underwear "fetish" about jockstraps, bikinis, thongs, etc., may simply fade away and be absorbed/assimilated into mass culture, and be taken for granted as "normal". (It certainly seems to be heading that way.)

I'm curious as to other people's thoughts on this. Please discuss!

PatrickSalsbury (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stockings section, after LGBT censoring, barely covers heterosexual males interest on the subject (the vast majority of fetishism around it). I don't have a problem if some sissy males enjoy themselves wearing stockings, but 90% of the section being an apologetic excusing of how males wearing stockings is completely heterosexual... is not what a stockings fetish section needs in a non-LGBT article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.174.183 (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a redirect

Knickers is a common UK term and the term knicker sniffing goes absolutely nowhere while panty sniffing returns search results. There should be a redirect for UK pervs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.182.188 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed image

I've removed an image promoting the pedophile game "Kogaru Diaries" - see discussion at Wikipedia:Ani#Insertion of an image from a banned user advertising their work depicting child sexual abuse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee "....advertising their work...." that's not a "work" that's a crime! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.237.9 (talk • contribs) 16:38, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Underwear fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520112041/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2303022.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2303022.ece

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) 05:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text removed

"It has been related numerous times on TV/cd websites, in press articles, on TV, in low-key surveys, in blogs and various other sources that for many it becomes present during very early childhood when a boy will for whatever reason naively become aware of and via simple curiosity start to 'play' with an item of female clothing.Again as related by numerous minor sources most of which may be found on the Internet the high incidence of pantyhose (and nylon stockings) occurring as two of the most prolific items of a 'first encounter' or 'trigger' is perhaps not unsurprising as they are (were particularly for previous generations) a uniquely tactile feminine item on constant daily display whilst being readily available around the home in washing baskets, on lines, in waste bins in a Mothers or sisters room etc. Sadly whilst many TV's/cd's derive great pleasure from cross dressing a child's earliest encounter and the often ensuing if erratic progression/obsession can often lead to him to becoming a transvestite, the seeds of which were possibly sown via an innocent, naive encounter. As any transvestite would admit once triggered the urge is extremely potent and powerful. (*It is broadly understood that a transvestite derives sexual pleasure from wearing women's clothing whilst a cross dresser simply prefers them). Often a pantyhose fetishist may also engage in stocking fetishism, the unique silky sheer aspect and allure of both items being the common denominator."

This is totally unsourced, reads like a paste from someone's blog, and is perpetuating harmful stereotypes (although of course I'm not removing it because I'm offended because WP:NOTCENSORED, but for the aforementioned reasons). ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Some people get excitement from removing a bra"

I removed that sentence from the bra section, my reasoning being that I highly doubt it's referring to removing your own bra, and there are basically no non-sexual contexts in which someone (or at least someone who isn't a nurse or something) would be removing another person's bra. I imagine that the vast majority of people attracted to women would be excited by taking off someone's bra because it's basically a form of foreplay, whether they had a bra fetish or not. I realize that's just speculation, but the claim isn't cited, so I don't think I need more than a hunch to remove it unless someone can find a reliable source saying that removing a bra is an element of bra fetishism. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've just removed the rest since it falls into that same category. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

about the deletion of a whole section by Meters

Meters writes to the view history page: "how about we just remove the entire, long-unsourced list instead?" Meters this is ridiculous you are doing, you seem to be jealous and delete a whole section because you don't like and have monopolized the whole article, what's that complex of yours?

that's a biased point of view and not neutral

by the way the whole section has something to explain in detail and the references will be added sooner or later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00.IP.00.IP. (talk • contribs) 23:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years is more than long enough to wait for sourcing. As it stands this is nothing but a poorly written coatrack for editors' opinion. Don't restore it again unless you can provide reliable sources. Meters (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The unsourced list I removed even starts with a statement that it is just speculation : "A few typical examples of subcategories perhaps would be:" Meters (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]