Talk:Monster erotica

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mu-such.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of the term "cryptid" and pseudoscience
recently performed this edit. The term cryptid does not appear used in the cited reference, and was coined by (and is used by) proponents of the pseudoscience/subculture of cryptozoology to promote their pseudoscientific beliefs, that there's a hidden dinosaur or ape-man somewhere to be hunted(Cryptozoology; "In a textbook aimed at undergraduates, academics Caleb W. Lack and Jacques Rousseau note that the subculture's focus on what it deems to be "cryptids" is a pseudoscientic extension of older belief in monsters and other similar entities from the folklore record, yet with a 'new, more scientific-sounding name: cryptids'", etc.) — everyday people and academics alike just call these entities "monsters", and they all stem from the folklore record. It is not a neutral term. Sandstein, would you care to explain? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I used "cryptids" because we have an article about this concept that explains it. It is not self-explanatory, at least to average readers, what "the folklore record" is. (Like, a vinyl record with folk music?). Perhaps we could use "folkloric, mythical or legendary beings such as ..."?   Sandstein   17:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for hearing me out, Sandstein. This is an improvement, and I see what you mean about confusion regarding 'folklore ... record'. I think the only remaining issue is that myth and legend are types (genres) of folklore, so the current sentence reads kind of like 'vegetables, onions, and broccoli'. I recommend that we either drop "myth and legend" or just drop "folkloric" (eg., "creatures form folklore like ..." or "creatures from legend and myth like ..."). "Legendary creatures" would also be accurate and straightforward, and maybe the easiest to follow while maintaining accuracy, especially since scholars usually define myth, the genre, as 'stories about gods'. What do you think? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'd rather use "creatures from legend and myth", because I doubt that most people recognize folklore as a supergenre of legend and myth, and "legendary" alone is most often associated with (demi)human figures such as Hercules or King Arthur, rather than with the more fantastical beings that these sex stories are about.  Sandstein   22:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask for the editing of a certain paragraph in the Monster Erotica page. The following: "Monster erotica writers argue that sex with monsters is different from sex with animals in that the monsters are portrayed as intelligent beings and as being in control of the encounter.[1] However, erotic monster novels often feature non-consensual sex at least as regards the human participants.

In anime and manga, monster erotica or romance is somewhat more mainstream (e.g. in such titles as Monster Musume or Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid), and the relationship may be portrayed as more clearly consensual." There are some things i would like to delete. "Monster erotica writers argue that sex with monsters is different from sex with animals in that the monsters are portrayed as intelligent beings and as being in control of the encounter." For starters, many of this Monsters like Bigfoot and Nessie are animals so it counts as beastiality. And it does not matte if they are intelligent or not, its still zoophilic by the word. And then you might be thinking "But what about Mermaids and Elves?". There is a difference, Mermaids are humans with fish tails and Elves are most likely species of human from the Homo genus. That's why the term "Monster" is not very specific, because many of this Monsters would belong in different taxonomical classifications. There is a difference between Human related and non human related Monsters. Next we have: "and the relationship may be portrayed as more clearly consensual." That part is irrelevant. For starters, consent is not the only thing that matters. Two, if its a non human animal monster (regardless of intelligence) its still beastiality. This is nothing but a biased and arbitrary belief made by cartoon zoophiles to justify making porn of cartoon animals. By adding that your promoting misinformation and biases, and the concept of wikipedia was to bring accurate and non biased information. Thats why i request to let me delete some of the information of this paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * What are your reliable sources (WP:RS) for this assertion?  Sandstein   08:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I investigated and came with this conclusion. And as i told you, those paragraphs i told you about are very biased and misleading. So i request the permission to erase them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia, we are forbidden to engage in our own investigations and conclusions. See WP:NOR.  Sandstein   19:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Well that's a little bit hypocritical considering the info I told was made based on the conclusion from Monster Erotica writers and possibly the one who wrote the article. Trust me, this info is rather misleading and unnecessary and its better if I erase it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I don't trust you. I trust reliable sources. WP:NOR is a non-negotiable core policy, and if you do not agree to abide by it, you need to leave Wikipedia and write what you want to write elsewhere.  Sandstein   17:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My claims are based on biology and psychology. You can trust me. Why can't i edit that page. Can you give me an explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The explanation is that our rules require reliable sources, not trust in anonymous people on the Internet. You must read WP:NOR and abide by it, or leave Wikipedia.   Sandstein   08:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

And do you really think that Monster Erotica writers themselves are a reliable source, considering that the only reason they use that flawed logic to justify their disgusting fetishes? Tell me who is more reliable. Someone whos studies biology and psychology to some degree, or some guy who jerks off to the Longness Monster? The choice is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 03:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)