Talk:Hogging (sexual practice)

Deletion
I find this to be perhaps the most legit article on such a practice ever. absolutely no reason for speedy deletion. is it distasteful? yes. but how much of wikipedia and urbandictionary is? it does not change the fact that this is an active pastime for degenerates. should we censor knowledge of it though? no. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.160.60 (talk • contribs).

I agree with the above -- if you take this page down the terrorists will have won. JJG &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.36.123.162 (talk • contribs).

I also agree with the first poster. This article is legit and is an extension of knowledge. Why delete such an article if it pertains to a legitimate pursuit of knowledge? 130.160.232.43 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel similarly. Just because this page has been posted on collegehumor.com and is getting constant vandalism is no reason to delete it. I do feel it doesn't hold up to wiki standards, though, on issues such as the "examples" given. Archtemplar 22:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an urban dictionary. It's tagged for deletion because it's unsourced.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

True, examples are going to be personal and therefore hard to come by (as we usually hope all sexual encounters are), but links are now included to hogging related websites with stories and reasoning for such activities. This article should be untagged for deletion as of now. Calbearspolo 18:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Calbearspolo

It is absolutely pathetic that a once-solid article on this topic not only has been taken down but has been removed from the history section as well. That is shameful, irrational, indefensible, fearful censorship on the part of people whose agenda has less to do with informative articles appearing on Wikipedia and more to do with their own personal preferences and dislikes. For shame.

This article has been previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Hogging. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. If this article is created again in the future, speedy deletion will be appropriate. Brian G. Crawford 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should the article be deleted? It refers to something real. Why should it be deleted when Wikipedia is full of articles about minor Star Trek characters and other things that are fictional with no impact on anyone's lives and of far less relevance than this topic?


 * The question is not whether this article is more relevant to people's lives than various Star Trek characters -- the question is whether or not this phenomenon can be proved to exist and be notable, which means worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As per Wikipedia guidelines, "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." If you search online for this topic, Wikipedia, along with the three articles sourced here (which, in my mind, are all of questionable veracity because they refer back to one another and do not independently establish the existence of the topic, with the possible exception of the 2003 Cleve Scene article, which itself is based solely on interviews) is really the main source of information on this topic. I do think this term could be included in a dictionary, like Urban Dictionary or even Wiktionary, but its sources do not provide adequate notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I question if this phenomenon exists, outside of potential isolated incidents, at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.184.87 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Recreation
I have recreated this article as a completely different article from what was previously here. Please note the numerous sources and mentions in mainstream and academic publications, and try to keep this article clean. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 04:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * While the new article is better, I still think it merits a Wiktionary definition at best.  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 04:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like a well-sourced and discussed phenomenon, although someone decided to ignore the talk page and speedy it anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Sexual" isn't a proper noun, and I don't think it needs to be capitalised. Furthermore, the disambiguation part of an article's name should be as concise as possible. I'd suggest Hogging (sex). --kingboyk 15:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ON second thoughts, there's no reason I can see why this shouldn't be at hogging. 2 article dab pages are rarely needed, and the other challenger for the slot is really only a dictdef. They have about the same number of incoming links. --kingboyk 15:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I moved it to (sex) for now. If you feel the disambig isn't worth it, I have absolutely no protests, I think the disambig was created because someone changed this article to the dicdef. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yikes, we must have been hitting buttons at the same time cos I ended up moving your redirect! lol! Never had that happen before! Anyway... Shall I move it to the main slot or leave it here? --kingboyk 15:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Main slot works. I had an opportunity to recreate it at (sex) again during the edit conflict, haha. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article qualifies as well-sourced. I have read the sources provided -- they are few in number, the academic reference is actually based ON the original 2003 MSM article, and the original article is based solely on interview, and on second- and third-hand storytelling (which the article's author herself admits is questionable.) I question the notability of this article. Specifically because, as the general notability guideline states: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." 99.231.184.87 (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again nomniated for speedy deletion based upon all the foregoing. 2600:8804:7100:4000:F13A:A67F:6AD2:DC0A (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories
Someone came along and edited out categories "Intimate relationships" and "Hobbies". Keep your biases and prejudices to yourself. Hogging is an intimate relationship. You may disapprove of it but it is still an intimate relationship and your dislike is not reason to erase an appropriate category. Hogging is also a hobby to those who do it and your dislike for that pastime is not a decent reason to edit out that category.

Likewise your edit of those categories to "Sexism" and "Abuse" are inappropriate. Hogging is not sexist; it involves discrimination based on obesity, not on gender. Likewise it is not abuse; both participants are willing.

Keep the article NPOV and keep your own angry biases out of it.


 * I think a better solution would be to remove all of the contested categories until we can come to a consensus on what is appropriate. Joie de Vivre T 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you contest whether or not hogging is an intimate relationship? Or a hobby? Booty call (slang), Cruising for sex, Casual sex, Infidelity, One-night stand, Pity sex and Seduction are all listed under Category:Intimate relationships, along with various forms of pederasty. Those are not particularly moral or universally approved forms of intimate relationships, but they are intimate relationships - just as hogging is.  There is no serious reason to exclude hogging from that category.
 * I can agree that it is as much a form of an intimate relationship as anything else, but whether it is a "hobby" is debatable. Is arson a hobby?  Probably to the arsonist, it is, but it's unlikely that others see it that way.  The article makes it clear that the activity is exploitative in nature.  I think a decent compromise would be to add the categories "Intimate relationships" and "Abuse" and leave it at that.  Joie de Vivre T 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But why or how is 'abuse' applicable or appropriate? If you look at that page - Category:Abuse - you will see that all articles there involve unwilling recipients of abuse.  Hogging is not like that.  If you look instead at something that involves someone willingly receiving what others might consider to be abuse - say, Bondage (BDSM) - the (upper) category shared with Hogging would be Category:Human sexuality.  Many and perhaps most people would not want to be subjected to sodomy or homosexual contact, but it would not be appropriate for either of those to be listed as abuse for that reason.  Given that hogging is far more universally the province of two willing participants, how is it fair to label hogging as abuse?
 * It is fair, because the article describes the activity as "targeting" women and "taking advantage" of them, probably because in many cases the women are not aware that they are being mocked. Joie de Vivre T 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then wouldn't telemarketing be abuse as well? How about advertising, for the same reason? Both target people and take advantage of them.  People can hang up on telemarketers, or listen to their pitches; they can change the channel when commercials come on or ignore billboards, or watch commercials and read billboards; they can shoot down or ignore hoggers, or choose to fornicate with them.  Note too that hogging isn't taking advantage of women; as the article states, hoggers "take advantage of their (fat womens') stereotypical low self esteem".  That's not much different than a person taking advantage of a well endowed part of another's anatomy, or of their ability to carry on amusing or engaging conversation, or of a romantic partner's ability or predilection for eating out at fine restaurants or going to nice places or whatever else.
 * It is an assumption, very possibly not often accurate, that the women are not aware that they are being selected for their chunkiness. It is not a part of hogging (per the article, or anywhere else to my knowledge) that women who participate are subjected to mocking. The hogger may share, make light of or mock the whole experience later, but the women are not subjected to mocking.  The article itself makes no mention of mockery, nor of women being degraded in any other way.  Many who engage in hogging do it because they - and the friends with whom they share the experience - enjoy it and enjoy stories about it the same way they enjoy stories about a good fishing trip or a hard fought athletic contest or an unexpected turn of events in a card game or horse race or some other fun episode.

(unindent) Advertising and telemarketing are considered abuse by some. The reason that hogging is more easily classified as such is that unlike either of these two, it is an immediate interpersonal interaction. From this article:


 * "... he liked to talk about "sweat-hogging." A college friend, a good-looking guy, had been into it. "Let's go out and pick up some pigs tonight," the guy would say. He homed in on fat girls, demanded oral sex, then kicked them out of the car when he was done. "He'd literally boot 'em out with his foot," Rick says, telling the story just as his dad told it to him."


 * "Hogging, after all, is something men talk about with men, not women"


 * "I just talk to them like they're complete disgusting pigs," he says. "You gotta break 'em down with insults. Comment on their fat -- 'You're a dirty little pig.'"


 * ""He's good because he has no conscience," Mark says mournfully." (presumably "good at it")


 * "The average hogger has little sympathy for his prey."


 * "They understand their place," Rick says. "They know they're pigs. They don't get it like a normal girl could. They're desperate."

This doesn't sound like abuse to you? (Abuse can be consensual if the person hates themself.) Joie de Vivre T 02:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that some hoggers might kick a girl out of their car does not mean that hogging is abuse. Some football players kick girls out of cars.  Some bars kick people out.  Does that mean that football or clubbing are abuse?  The other examples aren't necessarily abuse.  So a guy tells a fat girl that she is a fat pig: she can leave, but some obviously like it or do not mind.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.72 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've hogged 8) D-Fluff has had E-Nuff  18:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

References and citations
I have added refimprove and notability tags to the article for reasons stated below, questioning the notability of the subject itself, and the reliability of the article's sources.

One of the sources (the book Get Off your Butt, America!) is self-published, which is not considered acceptable for verifiability: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." I am removing it from the references for this reason.

Similarly, the article from pointsincase.com (a humour/entertainment website consisting of opinion pieces) does not meet the verifiability standard, because, again quoting from Wikipedia's policy, it is a questionable source: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." (Emphasis mine.)

Within the Wikipedia article, there is a reference for "An unofficial study by Dr. Judith A. Sanders of the California State Polytechnic University Communications Department in Pomona" which has no in-line citation, and which, if none is provided, I will delete, as it is totally unsubstatiated. I even checked Google Scholar briefly myself to see if I could find the reference by that author, but came up empty-handed.

The paper from Deviant Behavior is from a reliable source, however, it is based mainly on the Cleve Scene article by Sarah Fenske and may not constitute notability. Indeed, because it is a qualitative research and not quantitative research, it cannot demonstrate the prevalence of this practice, which is one factor that would lend proper notability. If this is an isolated practice, or one whose reports cannot be proven to be more than urban legend, then one qualitative paper based on interviews does not establish the practice as notable or even as existing. The Wikipedia notability general notability guideline states that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability."

What we really have here is a topic described in one "human interest" article, based entirely on interviews of people who claimed to indulge in the practice, and then subsequent articles and references (some questionable, some reliable) were based on that single article. Sarah Fenske herself, in that article, writes: "One universal truth: The boldest hogging stories always happened to someone else. The more savage the act, the better the chance that the guy telling the story didn't do it -- his buddy did. And the buddy, just as frequently, is impossible to track down." She also briefly touches on the impossibility of finding 'victims' of the practice -- either because they were unaware, or simply don't exist. She says, in the article, "It's temping to attribute all hogging to braggadocio and the fine art of BS. Indeed, even some guys who've hogged insist that it's no more than a way to justify drunken actions the morning after."

The bottom line is, simply because multiple references sprung up after one article was published, does not mean this practice is verifiable, even if it does exist. And Wikipedia states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Therefore, even if the practice does exist, it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia unless it can be verified by reliable sources. I don't think we've demonstrated that here in the article.

I myself thought this was a legitimate phenomenon after reading the Fenske article two years ago, mainly because I did not look any further than that article. When I found this Wikipedia page and read the sources listed, and hunted for more sources, I realized that none of it was verifiable, and all of it gives off a strong odour of urban legend. Furthermore, even if it could be considered verifiable based on the Fenske article and the Deviant Behavior paper, I question whether these are enough to establish notability.

This article was voted for deletion, and then recreated two years ago, and doesn't appear to have improved since then. If more reliable sources cannot be added, I would propose this article for deletion again. Peggynature (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are fine, from the looks of things. The "unofficial study" appears to be sources at the end of that paragraph, so I've removed those cite tags, and restored the links and sources you removed because they appear to aid the discussion.  The practice does appear to be verifiable per our policies, and the self-published book is by an established doctor.  Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, looking at the source provided, that he is a MD. That, however, does not make him an expert on the topic of "hogging." Wikipedia, again, states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." His work on "hogging" was not published in any reliable publications; it was only given a brief mention in his self-published book. Again, I believe this was derived from the original 2003 Cleve Scene article, which essentially makes this a Wikipedia article based on a single article, with references that are likely also based on that single article. Which itself was based on interview. I'm not sure that really makes sense. Peggynature (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He is a heatlh expert. His work is in the "relevant field."  I do not agree with the rest of your assessment after looking at the sources. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is a sexuality article, not one on medicine. His book and, arguably, his medical practice might constitute expertise on "obesity" and nutrition/exercise, which his book is about -- but that is not what this article about. None of his peer-reviewed publications are even about obesity, however, so his 'expert' status even on that is questionable according to Wikipedia guidelines (see quote above.) Also, if you read closely, the "unofficial study" is NOT the source at the end of that line -- it is referring to the 2003 Fenske article, which is one of only two arguably verifiable sources on this article. The Fenske article itself does not mention the "unofficial" Sanders study, and none of the references on this page point to it either. Peggynature (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its an issue that involves health and social mores. I disagree on the rest. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, please direct me to the "unofficial" study, if you have found the source for it. Dr. Quarles has never published anything in a reliable source about social mores or sexuality. The fact that he is a MD with a self-published book on weight loss does not make him an expert on "hogging." Peggynature (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Hogging just redirects here, if there's no alternative terms shouldn't we move this there? Tyciol (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made hogging into a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing, as Hogging is now a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete
You won't find such rubbish in a reference encyclopaedia.

109.150.239.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I Second Deletion of this article as not notable enough to merit proper inclusion. 2600:8804:7100:4000:F13A:A67F:6AD2:DC0A (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Expansion
If this is going to be a legitimate Wikipedia article, we need better sources. I am starting to expand the article using the sources referenced here. I also removed Get Off Your Butt, America!, because that is not a reliable source. --Iamozy (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove "Justification" section.
Explain the practice, not the reasoning behind it. Especially not reasoning as explained by opinion pieces and biased theses. predcon (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)