Talk:Navel fetishism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Navel penetration?[edit]

I'm wondering if this would be considered another form of outercourse. I thought about it when I heard all the relations to it being a miniature vagina. Unusual, sure, but considering there are ear and nostril fetishists who do this, it could be a possible with a very small finger and a very large (likey 'innie') bellybutton hole. I'm not really certain of what the depth of the belly button would be, I can't even get up into the first joint of my finger when I try putting it in, so I'm guessing it would not happen much eh? Tyciol 23:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


seems like if some one was really fat Navel penetration could be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.243.41 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yes it can be done. You just need to keep the penetrating member straight on target. I love it when the aim is good.Calipatra (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Navel penetration?[edit]

Mainly, no. Although it has been known for some individuals to engage in direct penis/navel 'outercourse', it's generally not practiced.

However, to get a more definitive answer, I'll try see what information I can dig up.

One could suggest that it would be another 'sub-fetish' of navel fetishism.

After all, for some foot fetishists who enjoy direct genital stimulation from feet, it surely wouldn't necessitate the entire fetish to be classified as outercourse?

The reason I made reference to the 'miniature vagina' comment was to dispute the theory, not to give it more weight.

Thank you for your feedback though.

Latest changes (17-01-07)[edit]

1. I removed the reference to explaining the difference between the strict definition of fetishism and sexual fetishism/partialism. I believe that it’s unnecessary to include this information as it’s already explained thoroughly in the parent article on sexual fetishism.

2. I included some reference to ‘self induced navel play’.

3. Included ‘navel sex’ reference as a form of outercourse. This was added for two reasons, one being that it was brought to attention by someone on the ‘discussion page’, and that it seems to be somewhat popular among some navel fetishists.

4. I removed the ‘quotes’ section, but kept the Madonna quote. I personally believe this is the only quote (along with Lisa Donohue’s) to actually be relevant to navel fetishism at least as far as sensory stimulation goes. I also cited an outside source for the Madonna quote. I had to remove the quote from Apollonia about Prince, because I tried to search online for a reference to it, but couldn’t find one. I also don’t really believe that Cher’s practise of putting crystals in her navel would have had all that much to do with sexual fetishism.

5. I attempted to clean up the argument about the ‘miniature vagina’ reference.

6. I included a section in ‘Trivia’ addressing the fact that there are both men and women of all sexual orientations who have this fetish. Something I thought to be a point of interest, considering that it’s been typically believed that male and female ‘fetishes’ are often quite different.

7. I condensed two separate instances regarding navel piercing into the one section.

8. I deleted all references to ‘favourite shows/movies/actresses’. Basically, to try and keep the article as full of relevant information about just the fetish itself, without getting into too much unnecessary trivia.

9. I made an attempt to cull the external links section from getting too big.

Mauve hanky 12:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

naval ornimentation[edit]

could we add something about naval ornimentation with reguards to naval fetish. is their an increase of instances of naval fetish corolated with the increase in belly button rings. doesnt increased pierceing suggest that the naval becomes more acseptable as a mainstreem culture?--Dr noire (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Navel Ornamentation/5 June edit[edit]

I originally included something regarding the fetishist's stance on piercing. Despite being unverified, the information is still pertinent to the article. For some reason (possibly lack of verification), it was removed in an early 2007 edit.

The omitted entry is: Most navel fetishists exhibit a strong dislike towards the practice of navel piercing, although there is a (albeit uncommon) sub-category from mainstream navel fetishism for those who specifically prefer pierced navels.

I also just removed the entry on 'belly ups' - it really had no place in the article. There are no references to it anywhere else on the Internet. Mauve hanky (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Can we get a pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.24.188 (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Changes as of Friday, 29th April 2011[edit]

The major additions here were written in the personal viewpoint of a male navel fetishist with the content based on adult videos with navel fetishism as a central theme. Viewpoint from a female navel fetishist in a separate section for a more balanced article would be much appreciated.

As a result of the content being based on related fetish videos from sites such as 'Clips4sale', a site restricted to adults, caution was exercised with specifically putting down references and links to potentially copyrighted material.

The various tickling/fetish forums on the internet indicates a sizeable base of members of navel fetishists, and they are strongly encouraged to contribute to this article. It is strange that this article had very little information on the fetish to begin with.

On a personal viewpoint, there is a lot more to the fetishism than just mere attraction to a scar on a belly left behind by severing of the umbilical cord at birth, i.e. to some it is a symbol of the female body as much as the breasts. Additional content to what has been just added is highly welcomed. SoFDMC (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoFDMC (talk • contribs) 07:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who feels that Wikiman88's edits to this page have been detrimental? --68.195.100.119 (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Male navel fetishism[edit]

There seems to be absolutely no mention of male navel fetishism in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushichef4real (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Why most sexual photos satisfying straight male readers only?[reply]

Men view pornography more than women do, and society tends to cater to that. Equinox ◑ 09:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Navel fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Navel fetishism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Celebrities' section[edit]

I have just removed an utterly obnoxious 'celebrities' section from this article, since it violated WP:BLP policy in multiple ways. Anyone attempting to restore it without a clear consensus can expect to find themselves having to explain why at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Navel_fetishism&oldid=1202650629"