This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
This article, which replaced an earlier and more informative one, is worded illiterately and filled with doubtful and probably unverifiable assertions. The second section concerns the specialized use of cigarettes in S&M pornography, which may be unrelated, or only slightly related, to the paraphilia for smoking per se. If the earlier article on the topic is unavailable for revising and footnoting, perhaps the entire entry should be deleted.Cantoohide (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)cantoohide
One of the best sources of information on the smoking fetish is www.smokingsides.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.166.80.202 (talk)
All fetishes are classically conditioned. They are reflexes that the person that has one has no control over. A parallel would be Pavlov's dog. The dog had a natural response of salivation when given meat. The experimenter would deliver meat to the dog and it salivated 100% of the time. The experimenter then started ringing a bell at the same time it delivered the meat. Eventually the experimenter would stop delivering the meat and just ring the bell. The dog now salivated 100% of the time from just the ringing of the bell. The same thing happens in humans. We have a natural sexual reaction. This is many times paired with stimuli that may or may not be considered sexual, but if given the right circumstances these stimuli can provoke the same sexual reaction that occurs naturally by just happening at the same time a person is sexually stimulated on a number of occasions. Since this can happen with any stimuli, never occurs the same in individuals, and can sometimes have no logical basis those without the experiences that cause a fetish do not understand them and consider them strange. That is too bad because they are natural and can be very healthy if given the right environment to exist in.
Is it common for people with a smoking fetish to share it with other women, friends of theirs? Is it common for people to be in a monogomous long-term relationship with only one of the partners experiences a smoking fetish?
Is it common for people with a smoking fetish to share it with other women, friends of theirs? Is it common for people to be in a monogomous long-term relationship with only one of the partners experiences a smoking fetish?67.167.98.108 mirandaXXOO
Can a responsible editor check to see if there are nay useful external links for this article? Somehow it has become a target for linkspam. -Will Beback 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Some of the subfetishes do not really seem to be fetishes in the technical sense of the word (i.e., a sexual attraction towards an object or body parts). Forced smoking seems more of a submissive thing, and there is no "object" here. Human ashtray similarly is a submissive or masochistic act. I've reworded it accordingly. Mdwh 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of text which was entirely unsourced and probably original research. Feel free to put it back if reliable sources can be found. Here is the text I took out: " Related paraphilia Forced smoking Forced smoking is where people like to be forced to smoke cigarettes. Sometimes this can be with a cigarette forced into their mouths, or it can be having smoke blown into your mouth.
Pregnant smoking Pregnant smoking is where people love to see heavily pregnant women smoking cigarettes or cigars. It depends upon the individual as to whether the 'turn-on' is the damage that smoking while pregnant can do, or whether it's just how the 'bare stomached' woman sucks in the smoke or holds the cigarette
Smoke play
Smoke play covers a wide range of acts from smoking during sex or foreplay, to a woman using her cigarette as a tool to turn-on a man.
Coughing fetishism Coughing fetishism is a sexual fetish in which people like to watch other people coughing. It is often related to the smoking fetish.
Some people fascinated with coughing require a certain sound or effect, such as a smoker's cough, a dry cough, a wet, productive cough, emphysema, etc. For some, it's more important to hear a cough than to watch it.
Human Ashtray
Human Ashtray is where people like to be used as an ashtray for people who smoke. This can involve holding an ashtray for the smoker or having ash flicked into their hand.
Another part of this is to have your mouth used as the ashtray, having cigarette ash flicked into your mouth, and sometimes having the cigarette put out in the mouth, sometimes causing burns. The "ashtray" is sometimes made to eat the cigarette end.
Sometimes people have cigarette ash flicked onto their body, and have the cigarette put out on their body - again causing burns."
This page definitely needs a Bill Clinton reference! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.82.119 (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
I don't mean to start an edit war. But I am going to Be Bold and get the hell rid of this. If an intelligent discussion and vote indicates putting it back up, I won't object. But this certainly doesn't strike me as the kind of NPOV writing encouraged in Wikipedia. Adding him to a "list of notable people with smoking fetishes" page would be one thing. Placing Bill Clinton in the "see also" section of a page on Kuwait would also be another thing. But, regardless of whoever's juices may have flavored his cigar, that's the sort of thing that belongs in Conservapedia, I believe. Malenkylizards 22:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
F**k Conservapedia, I just thought it was worth some sort of subtle mention, a documentary on the smoking fetish I saw mentioned it.Al-man53 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make since to me to have a picture of a man on the front of this page when the vast majority of smoke fetishers are heterosexual men. A picture of a female smoking would much better represent the fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmouse 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Pmouse
It is but I wouldn't consider it one of the most Socially unacceptable, I suppose it would depend on what level the fetish goes to but compared to say Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Biastophilia and Pedophilia its saint like!!! Al-man53 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This article has been tagged as unsourced for over a year. I've gone ahead and removed all the unsourced material, which was 95% of the article. As we find sources we can add additional info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason I re-added the old material is that is was a full article, albeit unsourced. Whereas what's left now is a single sentence and in my opinion an article is better than a sentence, especially one which just rewords the title. 86.144.4.78 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've found several sources that I think would be appropriate for this article. The main one is an article in the Wall Street Journal that has some basics about the fetish. Unfortunately this article isn't freely available, but if you have a way to access ProQuest (most libraries have access) the url is http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=23873223&sid=5&Fmt=3&clientId=11206&RQT=309&VName=PQD. The title of the article is "Drag Queens: Paula Puffs and Her Fans Watch, Enraptured --- `Smoxploitation' Films Signal That Smoking Is Becoming A Fetish Among Many" and it's in the Jan 31, 1996 edition of the WSJ. The other sources are alternative weeklies, and I'm not sure if they would be counted as "reputable", but they were published. There's a good overview of the fetish from the Boston Phoenix: http://bostonphoenix.com/archive/features/99/02/18/SMOKING.html. There are a couple articles about the people who make videos for smoking fetishists, one from the Cleveland Scene (http://www.clevescene.com/2003-01-01/news/porno-for-pyros/) and another from the Village Voice: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0238,gray,38421,1.html. Hope I did this right, I'm new here so go easy on me! POVpushee 07:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of the current statements about newsgroups. I doubt it's possible to find a reliable source that tells when newsgroups were created, but even if it is, I don't think they're notable... Valrith 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding..a section addressing "diagnosis", "misdiagnosis", and whether or not "medical treatment" is necessary for sexual fetishes today, in 2011? The 1950s are over and this section really should go. 184.19.131.61 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Please, please, please remove this link. Can't you see that this is a semi-porn site targeted to the fetishists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.10.37 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Her blog is not a reliable source for stating that the smell of smoke is a turn-on for men, for if it were, then women would also be turned on by men doing the same thing. What makes smoking a turn-on for men is the woman, not the smoke, and even then, the turn-on sensation is merely situational. When some straight men picture or see a woman smoking, it makes the smoke seem more pleasant to them; but if these same men picture or see a man doing it, then it isn't as stimulating. Plus, it helps tremendously if the men find the smoking woman attractive. Of course, there are also those men who aren't turned on by women smoking at all. In fact, some men are even turned off by a woman smoking.
In addition, the author admits that she is a smoker herself, which means that her sense of smell isn't properly calibrated. Those who often inhale first-hand smoke directly into their lungs will always find exhaled smoke more fragrant than the smoke that they're used to inhaling. In fact, those who are used to the smell of first-hand smoke don't notice the smell of it like non-smokers do, so anything more fragrant by comparison will smell good, even sweet. Also, those who hang around smokers all the time are so used to the strong sidestream smoke, that they also find the weaker exhaled smoke more fragrant by comparison. But try doing an experiment with non-smokers who don't hang around smokers, and you'll most likely find that there isn't much difference between inhaled and uninhaled smoke. Both are just as offensive and pungent, even though one smell is slightly weaker than the other.
Here's a link to the blog in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.114.108.115 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
How do editors feel about including recent press reports about the tobacco industry's efforts to use social media influencers? Eg. https://www.marketing-interactive.com/major-tobacco-companies-found-to-be-secretly-using-influencers-to-advertise/ ("Netnografica conducted interviews with young social media influencers who were paid to promote cigarettes online to millions of followers without disclosing that they were engaged in paid advertising. Key findings from the investigation conclude that tobacco companies seek out young people who have significant numbers of followers online and pay them to post photos featuring Marlboro, Lucky Strike and other cigarette brands.")
It seems this is at the root of public porn blogs like for example (I won't hyperlink to porn here but if editors want to check it out) a blog like marlbororedsperv (dot) tumblr.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.105.232 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO, this page does such a TERRIBLE job of explaining true capnolagnia that it is laughable, but I have NO interest in getting into an edit war Rsngfrce (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)