Added: Noele Millan - Date: 10.02.2022 20:59 - Views: 11680 - Clicks: 4409

Arright, I eventually went and rephrased a couple things. Take a look. As an FYI, I've plans to update and revamp this into something more usable. Macrophilla to Ralesk for laying down the groundwork, but it needs to be more accessible to those who are not Macrophiles and involved in the online sizechange communities, and less bewildering or offputting to those who are. I also plan to make it more comprehensive and, well, encyclopedic. It's an important topic, as there are a surprising of macrophiles out there, and it's a strange, poorly understood paraphilia macrophilla the wider world.

Changes will go live probably on March 10th,and I'll macrophilla over the original article to the Talkin case someone feels it's a better representation of the topic and wishes to revert part or all of it. I really would like to see something about the macrophiles who appreciates male giants. Please, Macrophilla really think that is necessary someone writes about it. The groups about male giants are always growing.

Is it something relationated with the fathers of these kind of macrophiles? I guess there are diferences between the macrophiles who apreciates male giants and the other kind of macrophiles. Is good to remember that the women and the gays generally prefer tall men.

Lankow12 Apr UTC Well, I agree that someone should write about these gay groups, because this kind of macrophilia is growing. I myself own three english and one german macrophile group. It is a phenomenon, really. One group has more than members at least since You know, I would do macrophilla myself, but my english is not that far, that Macrophilla could write an analysis of the gay macrophilia, like this one we're discussing. But I will help to work on it, if someone will begin to write about these communities.

Lankow12 Apr UTC. I've seen a claiming to be macrophilic macrophilla focused on giant fantasy creatures such as Godzilla. I don't know if there is a reptile-philia that would be related, besides the general "furry" category. Macrophilla a macrophiliac myself, and mainly a reptile-fond one, I must say it is not rare to find websites, communities, galleries, forums and others related to giant reptiles and other creatures. In some cases it is not directly sexual-related, specially in persons who avoid to think in sexual topics, but still feel attracted to giant creatures; in this very moment I have two examples I remember: myself, when I was younger, and someone I met recently in a MUCK.

In those cases --SPECIALLY when the macrophiliac avoids to relate his inclination with sexuality or genitalia, in other cases -- it is not gender specific; again I take myself and other ones I know as examples, our preference is not gender specific, and could also fantasy on completely genderless creatures with absolute null involvement of genitals in a fantasy; or in other cases, without the involvement of the larger creature's ones. My apologies if my way to explain this sounds too rough, but I try to be direct. I think it is almost unavoidable to write on this topic and not be biased.

If I wrote it, I could have been very biased towards the interest in larger creatures, without giving importance to gender, and not mentioning macrophilia towards humans which I think, perhaps is the macrophilla common, who knows; I have not been in human-macrophile communities, ever. I might write a long text about what I have observed on this matter during the last four years, hoping to be wikified and NPOVed by peers. I macrophilla a very observative and curious person, I'm constantly asking about what I'm interested in, and perhaps my point of view could help make this article more complete.

I'd deeply appreciate answers. I didn't want to directly edit the article as it has become more complete and encyclopedic-looking, so I prefer to put my thoughts on the discussion and see what can be done. In this last line I insist: I'm mainly a non-human macrophile and was a completely non-human macrophile for most of my life but the last yearand I have been gathering information --by living it myself and observing others-- for years.

I don't know much about the human-oriented dimension of macrophilia, except for the snapshot idea which website's portraits and group's introductions in yahoo can give. That's all. Take great care, and have a happy wikipedieing. In a bit of an answer and a bit of discussion as of the post above, as it is one of the things we are scheduled to hit on, I find Pentalis's point of view to be predominantly true. I have met a lot of fellow macrophiles who are actually turned off by the mentioning of more sexual situations involving giants, or are indifferent or only mildly biased towards sexual situations with giants.

Reptiles mythically or not, in other words. However macrophilla both fields what little I have found is that sexual situations do exist, which is why they are here. I recognize, Pentalis, that you were not stating that any of this mentioned here was false, but simply there was another side, but I wished to clarify that for anyone else. However Pentalis also brings up a good point in that Macrofurrywhich at the moment is a wiki all of it's own is technically a subgroup of macrophilia.

So I personally would love to see the two s combined in some form, as I, as one of the contributors to the macrofurry wiki, myself have ended up crossing over a lot of information already stated here, and this wiki states that macrofurries exist as well, without much further elaboration. Ok, I put the merge tag in Macrofurry article, and a post in the talk. If nobody answers I think I'm going to be bold and do it myself.

Pentalis23 February UTC. I, if you checked, am one of the major contributors to that. And as it's foremost contributor I have authorized it too be moved here. If anything, that is a a person's personal view and needs either a citation, or needs to be commented on that this is an unconfirmed trend. Further more. I am not saying this is incorrect, being a 6'4 macrophile myself and knowing taller ones But it needs to macrophilla cleaned up.

I have heard of this macrophilla, but as is, needs to be edited so it doesn't sound like it is fact with out proper citation. I would love to hear where that information is coming from. I think the main problem with this right now is complete lack of sources. As in, both on the article and in the rest of the web I mean, the one or t two sources we have introduction to Macrophilia by Samuel Ramses for example are either made by macrophiles or posted on marophilia websites.

Outside of that I can't find any reliable sources involved with macrophilia at all. It definitely exists, and it definitely needs to be put here, but I'm afraid it will be deleted if we can't source it quickly. Galactor4 August UTC. Alright, so I might be exaggerating when I say deleted, but still. It's a major problem with this article. I think it, besides maybe pictures and a bit of cleaning, is in a state where we could safely call it encyclopedic and not be too far from the truth if it weren't for the source issue. So I guess this is just a call in general to any macrophiles out there, send in your references.

We kinda need them. I will be much ablidged. Galactor24 October UTC. Fairly minor point but pertains to sources: the following sentence sounds like weasel words to me: "Some people have started having macrophilia because of macrophilla with giant people or giant monsters.

How do we know whether it is a cause, or that people who already had macrophilia saw the films and found an outlet for it? I have removed the unsourced material and assertions from the article. I also removed the external link from lavadome. The "introduction to macrophilia" by the supposed Samuel Ramses, "M. D" re like a fan-written FAQ essay. This was obviously not written by a doctor some much a medical doctor macrophilla a Ph.

The only place I could find this gentelmen's name anywhere was on sites that ripped macrophilla the "intro". No published works, no practice, no graduate work, no mention as a graduate or as an alumni of any medical school, nothing. If I could find this name on a more reliable source I would be better able to justify it's inclusion here but as it is there is no verifiability and this is not a reliable source.

I've also quoted the psycologist in the Macrophilla article. I know that portion of the article has a rather negative tone but she was the only professional I could find commenting on the topic. I couldn't figure out a different way to frame the webmaster's response to this in a way that didn't just rip the quote out and preceed it with "dave the webmaster says:". If anyone can figure out a more eloquent or descriptive way of paraphrasing the guy I would really apprecite it. Kind of a LOT to cut out of the article isn't it? I was tempted to revert this, but I wanted to see if a debate would solve it without harsh macrophilla being flung around, so here I am.

I don't think this intensive of a clean up was neccesary, as it looks to me more like a mass deletion then a clean up. Weasel words and all macrophilla are fine to delete, but this is an article just like BDSM and other paraphilias that your going to be hard pressed to find a single reliable source for. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I was afraid someone was going to do this, hence the reason it's on the to do list. However I see this type of thing as rather counter productive.

I apologize for my confrontive tone, but it's mildly insulting to see all of this hard work turn into a paragraph because someone doesn't think it exists Galactor12 December UTC. I have to agree here with Galactor. Being a macro furry myself I think its doing a big injustice for you to be the say all of what belongs here and doesn't in the names of sourcing material.

I think there should be a compromise in what is acceptable over what isn't. Maybe the article isn't sourced but most of the times people put in source tags rather then revert an article. I think if anything a vote or a compromise should be done here before someone takes it into their own power to revert an article that is meaningful and informative to those who may be curious to what macrophilia is all about.

I'm sorry to if I'm sounding harsh but this seems a bit extreme and over the top to turn the article back into a stub. There was already a "Doesn't site sources" tag and you can very easily put "source needed" tags if you feel that the article isn't to snuff. But in no way is your solution to what you find the problem to this article to be a proper solution to it. Its a work in progress. If you have problems with it talk about it here. Reverting an article to nothing is not the way to do it either. I am going to revert it back because your solution isn't right either. Can't just throw out peoples hard work because there aren't sources to macrophilla things.

Im a macrophile. I live with it everyday. Don't tell me that it doens't exist because there aren't some websites out there saying it does. Put in sources needed tags in the parts you feel aren't to snuff and thats more then a fair compromise.

This is not right what you did here NeoFreak. Its appreciated you are trying to help but this isn't how to do it. This sexual intrest is real to many people. Next time take a vote or offer alternatives before you take control of a situation that could have been resolved in a more reasonable manor.

This is a work in progress and unfortunatly no there aren't a lot of sources on macrophilla intrest as well I guess it just isn't important enough to research as it doesn't make a difference in life but it is real and everything said which I didn't add to by the way is very real and true. Macrophilla can't source it. You just gotta live it I guess to understand. In the jist of it, the controversy comes between inclusionism and deletionism. Myself, and PantheraLeo believe that the article was better before Neofreak edited it that version, by the way, can be found Here.

It had more information, and was the work of a good of macrophiles for a long time. However, Neofreak argues, and rightly so, that the article lacked a lot of sources, and the sources that were there were rather sketchy at best. Now, this might seem to be a cut and macrophilla case of NPOV or lack of verifiability, however as it stands, all of the former information most of which being furry macrophilia is verifiabile in it's existance, but not so much more then that.

There are plenty of sites devoted to it, but not many medical reports from physicians on the paraphilia itself, and the ones that do exist are arguably NPOV as well, as the community as a whole downright denies it.


email: [email protected] - phone:(724) 307-3858 x 3852

Talk:Macrophilia/Archive 1