Talk:Robot fetishism

Also

So just so as we know, external links must not be advertisements, and generally should be newspaper articles or stuff like that. Lotusduck 21:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Someone slapped a "merge with statuephilia, see discussion" tag on the article, but there's no discussion of it here. So I removed it. Robots and mannequins are clearly not the same thing anyway, especially to these fetishists. wikipediatrix 12:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Major edit

I've added much to this page, but unfortunately there are no sources I know of to site that exist off the web. All of the information I have added comes from my knowledge and experience as a member of the ASFR community, and from indepth discussions with fellow members at the Fembot Central message board. Robotman1974 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill Page

I can't see what the opinion "This phase was widely regarded as his worst." has to do with the article. It sounds like POV to me, so I've removed it. Also, I can't seem to find any reference to "Bill Page" the fetish artist on either Wikipedia or Google. Can someone provide an example for verification? If he is indeed popular, there should be a Wikipedia article or stub concerning him. Robotman1974 11:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Links removed

I saw that 2 external links were removed. I don't know much about sexrobot.com, so I have no issues with that being out. However, the link to SexTV is to an episode of a Canadian documentary television series. I think the information presented in the clip on that website is important information regarding this article. I've added the link again. Robotman1974 08:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge Sexy robot into Robot fetishism

• Oppose — Aside from the art appealing to some robot fetishists, the articles have little to do with one another. Merge instead into Hajime Sorayama. Robotman1974 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- Good point. My original intent was that the article "Sexy robot" seemed to be a section of another article, not an entire article by itself. I'll change the tags to merge into Hajime Sorayama. 71.112.117.93 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture section

I've removed all but 5 of these items. The list was getting too long and was starting to look like fancruft. The list should provide only a handful of the most relevant examples, and is not intended to be a complete listing of every instance (see WP:NOT). Robotman1974 20:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit. I'm not sure what your scale for measuring "relevance" is -- high profile entertainment like Futurama having a definitive, pervasive, widely recognized reference to robosexuality really trumps some obscure low budget pieces that you left in Robotman. -- CaptainMike 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about relevance to the topic of showing sexual attraction to robots, not popularity or amount of exposure to an audience. That's all highly subjective though. Input from some other editors on this issue would be helpful. Robotman1974 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm defending the Futurama reference more than anything. they did have an entire vignette about the dangers of sexuality with robots. -- CaptainMike 22:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw that... it's a personal fave. ;) Reconsidering, I guess that should be included too, but I'll wait for other editors to pare the list down again. Robotman1974 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Where was it called "robosexuality"? This word wasn't uttered during the episode.--Orthologist 17:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just removed an edit about a music video. This pop culture list is way too long as it is, and to me the video in question seems not to be an example of robot fetishism. A depiction of a sexual relationship with a robot and an example of genuine robot fetishism are close but not the same thing. If the guy in the video actually had a robot fetish he wouldn't have gotten rid of the malfunctioning robot. He would have reveled in that experience. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 15:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you cannot actually mention all the anime where someone has sex, or tries to have sex with a robot.Lotusduck

Word search on this page for "anime" "manga" and "japan" turns up nothing, this page is clearly incomplete.76.7.201.35 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Major revisions

I've just removed most of the revisions that were made to this article on June 14. The edit summaries here, here, here, here, here and here explain my reasoning for this. The most drastic change was to the "Pop culture" section. As has been discussed above, this section should contain only examples of a fetish for robots, not examples of sexual relationships with robots. Some of what was removed were things known and loved by the ASFR community, but are not depictions of a fetish for robots. In keeping with the guidelines on trivia (see WP:TRIVIA), the list should be getting shorter and eventually vanish, not be expanded. 66.222.227.42 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed more entries from the trivia section. The difference can be seen here. Again, these entries showed only human/robot sexual relationships and not specifically instances of a robot fetish. 66.222.227.42 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, a proposed merger with agalmatophilia

This is the second time that someone has suggested a merge with statue fetishism, but the two subjects are completely different and I'd be strongly against such a merger. Most robot fetishists, I'm sure, would not be attracted by statues, the major factor of independent or controllable movement being an important feature of robot fetishism. Far better to have the articles as they are at the moment, stating that although there are similarities between the two fetishes, they are different enough to be regarded as separate philias. Grutness...wha? 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. - Robots are not statues.... neither are statues robots. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• For. The objects are different, but agalmatophilia is the concept. Anyway.. where are the sources on "Robot fetishism"? The article seems not to have any reason for its independence; it certainly reveals nothing about how it exists as a fetish. If "robot fetishism" does not exist in psychological/clinical literature then what is the context?? Where is the context? and by whom?.. This proposed merger is a more than fair concession for a simple fan-based neologism. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've changed the merge proposal; the current text may be more useful as an addition or expansion to the context of technosexuality, rather than merging with fetishes, agalmatophilia or complete deletion. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Oppose. - The subject of the Technosexual article seems to be the word itself. This article focuses on a sexual fetish for robots. The two topics are different and categorized differently as well. They are unsuitable for merging. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not convinced by your claim "sexual fetish for robots"... according to whom is this a fetish?.. where is the fetishistic context? Isn't it just the interest in machines as sexual devices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.112.32.101 (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, I don't understand all the talk about context. What do you mean by that? The phrase "sexual fetish for robots" couldn't be more self explanatory. Do you know what a sexual fetish is? 66.222.227.42 (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the article - "Robot fetishism is a sexual fetish for robots... Robot fetishism can be viewed as a form of erotic anthropomorphism", but, the sources do not refer to this phrase or concept. Why is this? Because the phrase does not belong in an anthropological context, or in the contexts of clinical psychology, and instead has its own meaning. So, what does it mean - what is the context? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I can answer your question. The statement "Robot fetishism is a sexual fetish for robots" is about as clear and plain as it gets. It means precisely what it says. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I know it's a difficult question - because we are without sources, and thus the question is being answered with the rights of an editor's personal opinion, not fact, and therefore constitutes original research. Furthermore; the clarity and plain-ness of the meaning of "Robot fetish" explains little except an ability to use English according to one's beliefs. Without sources, the article has the context of a group of robot enthusiasts developing a fan page and misunderstanding the meaning of fetishism.. or at least cannot explain themselves.. which begs the question of how they know they're describing a fetish? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fansite tag

I see no justification for the Fansite tag that has been placed in the article. Certainly, no explanation has yet been given for it. If no good reason for the tag is given, I will remove it. If there is anything in the article that could remotely be considered fancruft, then that can easily be removed. This is not a long article. I have just removed some of the "pop culture" references myself, and I wouldn't have a problem with that entire section being removed. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the tag because the section is superficial. It reads like a list of guestimates and lifestyle preferences being shared between friends. "Many people..", "some people", "A recent informal survey of ASFR community members", "some ASFRians do not wish to use synthetic partners at all". The article reveals very little - except opinion and descriptions of acceptable action to the ASFR community. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Almost all of those statements are sourced, and to me they appear to be exactly the kind of information one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article on a topic such as this. I take issue with the placement of a "fansite" tag mainly because it is inappropriate for an article with this type of subject matter. The topic of the article, a fetish for robots, is not fictional. I can see where there might be some confusion as some of the objects of this fetish are fictional. That being said, the fetish itself is not fiction. Therefore to suggest (as I think has been suggested above) that "real-world" context needs to be demonstrated is rather odd and off the mark, to say the least. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The statements are not sourced for "fetishism", fetishes or "Robotfetishism" - the sources describe a "lifestyle choice" about technosexuality by robot enthusiasts and TV hacks. I don't know where you are getting your source about fetishism. Care to provide one? 194.112.32.101 (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly don't know what you are talking about now. It almost looks like you have a problem with the article's title. If that's the case, you're going about it in a strange way. Sources are provided. They are in the article. I don't know what else to say. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing the title would be an appropriate move. If you could also point to the source that declares or describes "Robot Fetishism", I will consider not deleting the page/article. 194.112.32.101 (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I have just made some changes in order to repair broken references and add cited information that was previously removed. Judging by the recent changes, tags added and talk page discussion, those changes appear to have been made with much confusion about this article's subject. First a merge with statuephilia was suggested, quickly changed to a merge with technosexual. Both ideas were later apparently discarded. Then a "fansite" tag was added despite the fact that this article's subject is not a work of fiction. The image that has been replaced was of an industrial robotic arm... which shows to me just how deep this confusion is. Most of the article was re-written, which is mostly fine because it says with less detail essentially what was said before. But I have made some changes to remove what looks like original research. Specifically, I've replaced the text "The usenet group alt.sex.fetish.robots is considered the first newsgroup related to the fetishization of robots. The acronym of this group ASFR has recently come to describe a small culture of contemporary erotic interest in robots." with "By its enthusiasts, robot fetishism is more commonly referred to by the initials ASFR.[3] This acronym stems from the now defunct newsgroup alt.sex.fetish.robots." The former assertion is dubious because it lacks sources. 66.222.227.42 15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is confusing while the idea of fetishizing robots is presented as a recent phenomena according to the self-referential supporters of ASFR. Perhaps it was the case in the beginning of 1987 that there was a dirth of material on a computer network that automatically spoke words of "Robot fetishism", "Robot fetishism!" and this was boring, and needed to be created , and was, thus justifying the current thoughts of uniqueness, and the exclusive reports on this sexual abomination.

The changes to the merger reflect my latest discovery that statuephilia is another slanged neologism, and that "technosexuality" is correctly sourced, but is another "pop culture" agenda and would do well to be deleted. Likewise "Robot fetishism" if we can't find any information beyond "ASFR" group preferences, how to act and label things as "ASFR", and popular books on the subject of deviancy. 194.112.32.101 14:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent changes made to this article. Those edits ranged from subtle but crucial changes in wording that altered the meaning of the cited statements, to the introduction of off-topic material and heaps of original research. The above comment, with its references to "this sexual abomination", "my latest discovery" and "deviancy" make it clear to me that the recent edits were made without a neutral point of view, and so I will proceed with a request for comment on all the recent edits to this article. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the content of the discussion page with the content of the article... My changes have corrected and expanded the context and meaning of a very short-sighted article and the over-reliance on sexuality as the sole motivation and the ASFR newsgroup as the defining environment. Redblueball (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"don't confuse the content of the discussion page with the content of the article"??? I'm not sure you are aware of this, but the entire purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article. If you have been discussing something else, then what? I am now left with no doubt that the edits to this article made by 194.112.32.101/Redblueball are nor being made in good faith. It appears to me that this editor has a bias against this particular sexual fetish and would like to have all of the sourced and cited information that doesn't match his/her bias removed. At least one administrator and probably a few others have noticed problems with this user's edits. [1] Therefore, I have reverted the article back to a version which existed in stability before the above user started making a confused series of edits. Every statement in this version is backed up completely by cited sources. I have a hunch that Redblueball would rather see the article deleted.... in which case I can provide a link to WP:AFD. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1) All issues on both my talk page(s) have been resolved.

2) This reason for this [2] has not been brought to my attention.

3) I've registered the name "Redblueball" in good faith, and I have abandoned using an IP address.

Beyond the personal attacks - The status of the "Robot fetish" article is such that it is not clear whether the subject is correctly labelled, verifiable, notable, or an article of original research, and thus; the article is available to edit or delete accordingly. I have doubts on these issues because the sources are either referenced to the members of the a.s.f.r newsgroup directly (notability and self-referencing issues), to documentaries with a.s.f.r supporters and the "Fembot Central Message Board". The "Let's mech love" source does not mention a fetish for robots and instead presents a description of the interest in devices designed for sex (contrary to the existence of a fetish object). The source ""Wrong Turns Down The Sex-Info-Highway 5.07" again references alt.sex.fetish.robots newsgroup, but does not mention a "robot fetish" in an alternative context, instead presenting links to websites concerning the interest in robots resembling women (contrary to fetish objects being non-living or not human related), again machines designed for sex, and a link to a paraphilia Agalmatophilia (not a fetish). The only source with an apparent degree of reputation and that mentions a "Robot fetish" directly is the book "Deviant Desires: Incredibly Strange Sex" which describes it as a type of sexual role-play and the dressing-up in costumes enjoyed between partners. Redblueball (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "The "Let's mech love" source does not mention a fetish for robots".... The opening paragraph pf that article states: "Forget latex, school uniforms and spanking: there's a new fetish in town. Technosexuality, or the attraction to robots, is stirring loins all over the world." So far, all of the arguments you have put forth amount to little more than blowing smoke and grasping at straws. If you can be so completely wrong about this particular source, why should your judgement on any other matter be trusted? Your bias and desire to insert original research into this article has already been shown, both by the strange nature of your edits and by your comments about "this sexual abomination", "my latest discovery" and "deviancy" above. I've reverted the change you made to introduce the following wording: "A.S.F.R stands for alt.sex.fetish.robots, and refers to a fetish group or internet community of mostly men, who have a number of interests but generally they revolve around women who have no will of their own, so that may include robots but also manequins, hypnotism even freezing, and statues." This is not supported by the sources, and is factually wrong. I have also removed the article about robotic dogs, toys, and cars from the external links section because it is unrelated. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote... "Forget latex, school uniforms and spanking: there's a new fetish in town. Technosexuality, or the attraction to robots, is stirring loins all over the world."... is not explicit enough in my opinion, and the context of the source (metro.co.uk) needs honest consideration and comparison, however, I'm willing to concede to your preferences with this.. because the source is verifiable.

In regards to your representation of the second quote; you are quite wrong. It is from Allison de Fren (the documentary film maker referred to on 8 occasions in the article). My last edit stated that; 'one' could listen to this on the referenced video Remote Control: Romancing the Robot(streaming video) at 1 minute and 7 seconds and is as follows - "A.S.F.R stands for alt.sex.fetish.robots, it's an internet community of mostly men, who have a number of interests but generally revolve around women who have no will of their own, so it may include robots but also mannequins, hypnotism sometimes even freezing, and statues."

The article Techno Fetishes: Plugged in, wired up and totally hooked, American otaku confess their secret Japanese addictions. is pretty much self explanatory, but as it does not explicitly refer to "Robot fetish" or the newsgroup "alt.sex.fetish.robots", I shall move it to a "further reading" section.

Redblueball (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The video you quote is indeed one of the article's many sources. However, your own interpretation of that quote introduces bias and error into the article, and is therefore not acceptable. I've reverted to remove this bias, and also removed the unrelated article about toys and cars. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

The edits made by myself and an editor at 194.112.32.101 (presumably also Redblueball) are at odds. I can not see how the article's sources back up the changes being made, and I see a lot of original research and speculation going into the article as well. Also, I can't quite decipher much of what has been posted by that user on this talk page. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken external link to "ASFR entry on sexuality.org" ?

This link appears to send the user to the main page, and yields no results in a search... "There were no matches for "ASFR", whether in the Vamp subsection or anywhere else in this site. Please try again."

Has the entry been moved, deleted.. ? Redblueball (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The link appears to be dead, and has been removed. 66.222.227.42 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the first words of this article : Robot fetishism (also ASFR or technosexuality) ... What does this ASFR stand for?! I couldn't find the answer on the whole article... Arikel (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, i saw it... Wow... As usual, i learnt something on Wikipedia, but for once, i don't feel smarter now... Arikel (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What is ASFR?

It's obviously an acronym but the article makes no mention of it's meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.140.6 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hajime Sorayama

Can this artist be included in the "See also" section? Wasn't sure if it's appropriate or not. I discovered him from the cover of the Aerosmith album, Just Push Play. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Attention needed

• Check for notability
• Check refs
• Check content
• check NPOV
• keep an eye
• reassess after work completed

Chaosdruid (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article has multiple issues. Also Robotism redirects here. Why? What is the justification for "robotism" being linked to "robot fetishism"? Much of the article reads like fanboy sci-fi speculation. How do we know such a fetish for robots even exists and is notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia? What is the medical opinion, the psychiatric opinion, if such fetishism actually exists? Do we have a wide variety of neutral sources unconnected to the subject that discuss and critique the subject? And so on. It is a pseudoencyclopedic article. Laval (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The article seems pretty well referenced now, and I tweaked the minor neutrality problems I found. -- Beland (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Excessive focus on the ASFR community's takes on the fetish

I'm sure it felt appropriate at the time, when alt.sex.fetish.robots was the only place you could find any content or discussion on robot fetishism, but two decades later using you can barely find much more in relation to robot fetishism using that acronym, other than this article, and most certainly the community must have dispersed into separate scattered communities, some having arisen independently of alt.sex.fetish.robots, as you can still find robot erotica without the ASFR tag attached.

Yes, this is all more on the side of personal research and experience than properly sourced references, but the point still stands: The ASFR community and the robot fetishist community are no longer the same, but rather one has become a shrinking subset of the other. Terms such as "ASFR art" and similar statements should be reprhased to something along the lines of "robot fetish art", though at times it's hard to tell at a glance which statements have proven to be specific to the ASFR community and which apply to robot fetishism as a whole. 94.228.4.251 (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)