Talk:Plushophilia

Tone disputed

This article emphasizes the negative -- to me the author seems embarrassed by plushophilia, using a shield of "public perception" to bash it. The result strikes me as "methinks thou doth protest too much". I think this could be remedied by moving the focus away from public perception, and toward what plushophilia is, perhaps with examples. I added a Disputed Tone template. Comments? --Tom Howling 23:41, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I think it reads that way a bit, though I'm not sure if it sounds as if the auther is truly bashing it. Given the amount of negative publicity and feelings the topic seems to have generated in many quarters, it could have been intended to just jump in and cope with an expectation of scorn over the topic. However I agree it could be revised. In fact, this could be a good article to link to regarding the topic, dug it up through Manawolf: http://www.firstlight.net/~chythar/manawolf/articles/plush.htm

--ToyDragon^(talk)

Certainly an article about a controversial topic should include mention of the controversy. But this article is currently nothing but. Consider the topic sentences of 3/4 of the paragraphs: "Plushophilia is one of the more contentious topics in Furry fandom"; "Due to the sensationalism-friendly nature of very unusual sexual acts with such items..."; The negative image associated with Plushophilia...". Then the fourth paragraph is all about how non-plushophile plush fans distance themselves from the "extreme".

Having said all this, I'd rather a party with greater knowledge of the subject than I edit it. But if no-one does in a reasonable time, I will. Anybody? --Tom Howling 15:40, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

By the time I saw your comment here, I'd begun making a major edit on this entry since I hadn't seen any further commentary so far today *grins* I do know a few plushophiles and collectors myself, of all stripes, and am partial to toys myself. The name might give something away. Lemme see what I can come up with here. --ToyDragon^(talk)

Annnnd said overhaul is complete. I managed to dig up a few interesting links for the topic at least, including the Plush Code which I was not aware existed. Any plush fans out there, feel free to come in and dump more references and links. -- ToyDragon^(talk)

Excellently done. Thank you. --Tom Howling 22:09, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Prominent plushophiles?

I'm not sure why the "prominent plushophiles" list is appropriate... Spaz Kitty 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm...a relevant question

Could not a furry "sex doll" of sorts, be considered an "extra large" (or not) plushie with and SPH/SPA? I heard there was a furry somewhere making them, and this thought crossed my mind. Could also make for an interesting section in the article.

Giving toys REAL personalities

My brother and I can't be the only people in the world who gave our toys REAL personalities. Smart Dog This is Smart Dog, a British "mad genius" dog. He was just one of the personalities we gave our toys. Can you have some mention of how stuffed animals can be sapient beings? --Trisha Gaurav (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2017 (EDT)

This articlei is not wikipedia standards

This article makes it seem like all people that really like plushies, furry or otherwise, do it for sex. Which is 100% wrong. Also, not ONE citation?--RockclawKodachrome64 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2020 (EST) --RockclawKodachrome64 (talk) 12:39, 14 December 2020 (EST)

This is not Wikipedia. While this article would definitely benefit from cited sources (as it's marked), your alternative edits don't make sense. Adult fans of stuffed animals do call themselves "plushies" whether sexually-inclined to them or not, but of course, a plushophile is someone with plushophilia. You can feel free to add information about non-paraphiliac plushies, but there's no way to separate the term plushophile from this article. --Equivamp - talk 10:56, 15 December 2020 (EST)