Talk:Yiff

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

BuzzFeed mistaking simulated sex for actual sex

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The title of the BuzzFeed article quoted seems relatively straightforward as a reference. However, it appears to be a misinterpretation of what happened - a local newspaper hews more closely to the facts, quoting "inappropriate behaviour" and a Fox news report notes (around 1:55), that what was actually alleged was "simulated sex". This seems far more realistic, as it is something I have seen myself at furry events.

(In the end no evidence was provided to substantiate the specific claims made, but as mentioned in comments there volunteers were ultimately banned from using equipment and an agreement went unsigned.) GreenReaper (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Why not put that in the article?CycoMa (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing that, if people agree with it. I wanted to explain it in more detail here because a) it required a bit more space than provided in an edit summary, and b) I was curious to see if there were any obvious problems with doing so first. GreenReaper (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

GreenReaper I don’t see anyone opposing it’s inclusion. About you just put it in and me and other users tweak it a bit.CycoMa (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@GreenReaper: are you still up for putting in what you wanted to add to this article?CycoMa (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The way the incident is currently described sounds odd in-article. If we don't use the word "yiffing", it would seem it barely belongs in the article at all, in my opinion. Unless we're describing how a mainstream news outlet used yiffing in a headline, it doesn't seem like a necessary addition, but I'm hardly the arbiter of its removal. Squeeyote (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Should we flag this for deletion?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is already an article defining yiff on Wiktionary and any other information can already be gained from other articles like Furry Fandom (ex. the history and derogatory usage) I don't understand the necessity for this article. SharkFinnedGirl (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It exists because sources exist, and the Furry Fandom article is a general overview, not an exhaustive rundown of every phenomenon in the subculture. In any case merging would be the appropriate route per WP:BEFORE, and would probably be rejected as WP:COATRACKing. Dronebogus (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually going to cry; please do. Ceruleanix (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Add topic