Belly button fluff

[AndyTheGrump]

Did you know that Wikipedia has an article on Navel fetishism (T-H-L)?. Of course it does. And needless to say, it has, over the years attracted a fair bit of dubious content. I cleaned out a 'celebrity' section a few years back, as blatant violations of WP:BLP policy - it consisted almost entirely of navel-focussed-gossip, out of context quotes, and stuff sourced to the shittiest 'celebrity' websites one could imagine. Some of it was possibly libellous. All of it appeared to be written by said fetishists.

Needless to say, the celebrity gossip is back. With its star feature being Taylor Swift's belly button, which has apparently taken to appearing in public, rather than hiding itself away as it did in earlier years. Nothing particularly surprising about this new content being added, given the current emerging standards at Gossipedia, and to be fair, Ms Swift herself seems to have been at least partly responsible for the media attention, having previously insisted that she wanted her navel to be a 'mystery', more or less guaranteeing that its later appearance would attract comment. What struck me most, though, was the sheer number of sources being cited. I count ten, for the Swift section. And most of the sources are not merely unreliable, they are useless, and apparently there not because they say anything about Ms Swift's navel, but because they include photos of it. Is there a subset of navel fetishists that get their kicks from posting links, rather than merely fantasising over the object of their attractions itself? Hard to tell. Maybe not the work of fetishists at all, but instead the Swifties seeking to expand their coverage ever further? Certainly seems a possibility, given the sheer scale of her following. Rather odd, either way

Were I not Wikipedia's hate figure of the week, I'd be tempted to um, clean out this fluff so to speak. It doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Or in a mainstream navel-fetishists specialist publication, I suspect. Or a tabloid gossip magazine. It, or at least, the gratuitously-large collection of citations, seems to have been compiled especially for Wikipedia. Pure citation-overload, added because Ms Swift's navel is evidently seen to be of utmost importance to the world, and it has to be demonstrated to be thus by repeatedly citing photos of it. An attempt to make it independently Wikipedia-notable, perhaps? Are we to be graced with an article on it, and is this just preparing the groundwork? A mystery, awaiting revelation...

And yes, I know, before anyone comments, instead of the above I could have written something long and earnest about the objectification of women (most of the article being thus focussed), and/or the empowerment implicit in Ms Swift asserting control of her own body. I could likewise have expounded on the cross-cultural aspects of 'navel fetishism' and/or asked whether it is really a fetish at all. Or commented on the theological background to depictions of the navel, and on the reason that artists sometimes resorted to extreme measures to avoid taking sides on whether Adam actually had one. Frankly though, I can't be bothered. I leave that to others more erudite, and more inclined to do proper research. I just felt the need to illustrate just how bewilderingly weird Wikipedia can be sometimes. Not just obnoxiously gossip-obsessed but obsessed in its own special way. People are strange...

[Kraken]

It's a fair bet its a pedophilic fetish. Hence why it's no surprise to see it on Wikipedia.

The navel is one of the very first things a young girl (emphasis on girl) comes to see as a sexual thing. They're not thinking of sex of course, they're a prepubescent. But those who drive her sense of self are. The people making the clothing and the people who push this look into their socials, as a thing to focus on, emulate, aspire to.

Talk of empowerment is quite sick of course. I don't know how it is in America, and of course that's a huge place with widely divergent norms. But the UK is a pretty small island with a still quite homogeneous culture. So it's become quite obvious that the girl who, for whatever reason, doesn't want her navel on show 24/7, is seen as the oddity these days. The freak.

The pressue to bare and flex is immense, even before puberty. This is a cold country too, so when you see a girl in a nice warm jumper and jacket and nice sensible pants and boots, still baring her navel in darkest coldest January, in the few hours they're allowed to socialize between school and bed, you know it's peer pressure. Absolute certainty.

You don't even need to look to know the most desirable navels according to the celeb media cited in that article, will be close shot, indistinguishable from a child's body. The presence of jewellery or tan will tell you nothing. You can get a proper piercing from a very young age, certainly very early puberty.

Body piercers are specifically trained to refuse children whose bodies are so young there literally isn't even enough flesh for the piercing to take. But such is the demand, it's easy to find one who will look the other way. And so it's a coin flip whether it takes or the child ends up scarred for life. I dare say Wikipedia the encyclopedia isn't emphasizing this aspect of the culture.

The girl only needs a parent or guardian who finds it difficult to resist their insistence that this specific form of mutilation has to happen at this tender age, or they will DIE. It must be quite the ordeal for parents who are still struggling to come to terms with the fact pierced ears are normal even for very young girls.

If it were me, I'd have dropped a note at WikiProject Women.

No need to tell them this article is probably being edited by pedophiles.

They know. Known it since they were young girls.

[AndyTheGrump]

If you have any actual evidence that the article has been edited by paedophiles, I'm sure Wikipediocracy would like to see it. And given that the WMF actually appears to take its child protection policy seriously enough to block those appearing to support pedophilic behaviour with some regularity, the WMF T&S would probably be interested too.

Beyond that, I can see no point whatsoever in posting such comments, given how speculative they are, and given the complete lack of evidence provided that you are in any way qualified to comment on what goes on inside the heads of prepubescent girls, or of paedophiles. Or to make assertions as to what motivates navel fetishism. Frankly, your comments read rather too much like the 'these people aren't normal, they must be child molesters' logic that right-wing rabble-rousers engage in with depressing frequency.

Meanwhile, I see that once more it has been demonstrated that the best way to deal with an issue on Wikipedia is to write about it on Wikipediocracy. Thanks to GnocchiFan (T-C-L), who presumably read this thread before taking an axe to the article. Not sure I entirely agree with the comment in the edit summary about this being 'effectively a medical article', but that's a minor point: job well done.

[Giraffe Stapler]

It's a fair bet its a pedophilic fetish. Hence why it's no surprise to see it on Wikipedia.

The navel is one of the very first things a young girl (emphasis on girl) comes to see as a sexual thing. They're not thinking of sex of course, they're a prepubescent. But those who drive her sense of self are. The people making the clothing and the people who push this look into their socials, as a thing to focus on, emulate, aspire to.

Talk of empowerment is quite sick of course. I don't know how it is in America, and of course that's a huge place with widely divergent norms. But the UK is a pretty small island with a still quite homogeneous culture. So it's become quite obvious that the girl who, for whatever reason, doesn't want her navel on show 24/7, is seen as the oddity these days. The freak.

The pressue to bare and flex is immense, even before puberty. This is a cold country too, so when you see a girl in a nice warm jumper and jacket and nice sensible pants and boots, still baring her navel in darkest coldest January, in the few hours they're allowed to socialize between school and bed, you know it's peer pressure. Absolute certainty.

You don't even need to look to know the most desirable navels according to the celeb media cited in that article, will be close shot, indistinguishable from a child's body. The presence of jewellery or tan will tell you nothing. You can get a proper piercing from a very young age, certainly very early puberty.

Body piercers are specifically trained to refuse children whose bodies are so young there literally isn't even enough flesh for the piercing to take. But such is the demand, it's easy to find one who will look the other way. And so it's a coin flip whether it takes or the child ends up scarred for life. I dare say Wikipedia the encyclopedia isn't emphasizing this aspect of the culture.

The girl only needs a parent or guardian who finds it difficult to resist their insistence that this specific form of mutilation has to happen at this tender age, or they will DIE. It must be quite the ordeal for parents who are still struggling to come to terms with the fact pierced ears are normal even for very young girls.

If it were me, I'd have dropped a note at WikiProject Women.

No need to tell them this article is probably being edited by pedophiles.

They know. Known it since they were young girls.

Please tell me more about prepubescent girls' navels and how you believe they are sexualized...

[Vigilant]

Jesus.

Crow is soooo tedious.

[Kraken]

Frankly, your comments read rather too much like the 'these people aren't normal, they must be child molesters' logic that right-wing rabble-rousers engage in with depressing frequency.

Please tell me more about prepubescent girls' navels and how you believe they are sexualized...

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but still.

I posted the above, in spite of the clear risk of being labelled a right wing hack or a pedophile by my fellow Members, because this is an important topic. The increasing sexualisation of girls, and the role of media targeted specifically at girls in it, is the topic of increasing academic study....

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s_of_Girls

The navel, both the baring of it and the use of jewellery to adorn it, are an aspect of this, as the paper's methodology makes clear. It's interesting to note it seems to find this is more relevant than the idea clothing is getting shorter.

Given the topic here was the poor quality referencing, the use of the sort of vacuous gossip/celebrity image heavy content, which is exactly what said sexualising media relies on to a great extent, I would have thought the relevance was obvious. I guess not.

Such studies would definitely have something to say about the effect on prepubescent girls of Taylor Swift deciding her navel should come out, as it were. I dare say that's not the sort of reference that articles which mention it on Wikipedia, are using. Unless TMZ has had a radical change in staffing policy.

Bravo to any editor cleaning up articles like this. Deletion would be better. I can't see a justification for a standalone article here even as a medical topic. It's well known of course that for a general encyclopedia, Wikipedia sure has a rather large interest in fetishes and paraphilias. And I think we all know why that is.

If the people editing unencyclopedic information into Wikipedia articles like this aren't acting on pedophilic thoughts, consciously or subconsciously, then in light of academic studies like this, they might like to reconsider their actions, given what is a reasonable deduction as to their interest. Given the high likelihood as we know, that editors of Wikipedia heavily skew to white western males of a certain age.

The other risk to Wikipedia of course, is whether any of the editors adding this stuff are actually innocent girls who believe this is what Wikipedia is for and are regular consumers of said media. Wikipedia has no age requirement. It does let twelve year old girls become Administrators. This is known.

Horrific stories regarding the harm Wikipedia can do to children hitting the media aside, nobody can know who edits Wikipedia, by Rule of Wikipedia. It seems to be quite likely that their editioral standards are such that articles like this could end up bringing innocent girls into contact with pedophiles. And at a higher rate and in a less visible way than say, Algebra (T-H-L). So I would have thought the Foundation Officers charged with Child Protection and the volunteer editors who also have that as their chief motivator, would be all over articles like this. But of course, I don't even need to look to know they aren't. But it sure as shit isn't my job.

[AndyTheGrump]

So, no actual evidence that the article in question has been edited by paedophiles. As expected.

And just how many prepubescent girls are going to be reading a Wikipedia article on navel fetishism, for that matter? If we want to have a serious discussion about the sexualisation of young girls, I suggest we start by focussing on what the study you cite did: the mass media. One could, just as an example, take a look at the Daily Mail's obsession with publishing photo's of an early-teen Kylie Jenner in a bikini:

• link
• link
• link

[Kraken]

So, no actual evidence that the article in question has been edited by paedophiles. As expected.

And just how many prepubescent girls are going to be reading a Wikipedia article on navel fetishism, for that matter? If we want to have a serious discussion about the sexualisation of young girls, I suggest we start by focussing on what the study you cite did: the mass media. One could, just as an example, take a look at the Daily Mail's obsession with publishing photo's of an early-teen Kyle Jenner in a bikini linklinklink

Focus on the mass media, yes. But here we are. Yet another thread where you're buying into this myth there is or ever was something special about the Mail in that regard. Were those stories being used as Wikipedia references before the ban? Officially, with the support of the community and its editorial rules? I don't think so.

As for "how many prepubescent girls are going to be reading a Wikipedia article on navel fetishism", to take a leaf from your book, where's your actual evidence that they aren't? Given the state it was in to motivate you starting this thread.

Have you ever even interacted with a prepubescent girl? It is allowed you know. It doesn't make you a pedophile. You can admit it. Don't be afraid of what people here might think. Ever seen how they can often surprise you with their technical literacy? On the fully smart phones they routinely own from this age. And observe first hand their utter obsession with topics such as Taylor Swift's every thought and move. Especially if they have older sisters or older friends.

My cousin has just turned ten. Her best friend is well into eleven, and has just started puberty. Have a guess what the pair prefer to do in their spare time, when they are together. Is it fun childish things, or is obsessively poring over social media and the teen media celebrity culture it feeds them. And thus careering full steam ahead into the world of navel jewelry, as the first step on the road detailed in that study.

And we're talking about a 10 year old child who, unsurprisingly, when on her own, when she hasn't got her phone, is still quite happy to be a child. And I'll tell you this for nothing. Their mass media consumption doesn't include the Daily Mail FFS.

A Mail hater like you probably genuinely couldn't handle knowing that that the eleven year old in question lives in a world where there's nobody talking care of her. Nobody to stop her going where she wants during daylight hours, or routinely baring her navel and it's jewelry as pretty much the only part of her still quite girlish frame she can bare that is meeting the peer pressures she is under to look and feel and behave older than she is.

Both the ten and eleven year old are, without wishing to overstate the risks, for a variety of different reasons, all documented in studies of such things, quite clearly living at greater risk of abuse than most kids. The wandering Giraffe is welcome to assume that's because they know me. I'll not take it personally. I know that's his issue, not mine.

And that this isn't some nightmare oddity. It's the social norm for tens of millions of people in the UK. It is normal. Normalized. The luxury of the Mail hating Guardian reader is they don't have to live in the real world. They can happily pretend the Mail offices are simultaneously housing a bunch of pedophiles and right wing reactionaries, not journalists doing their jobs. Like that makes any sense..

Happy to pretend the Wikipedia model can fund newspapers too. And I guess it does for them. Right down to the fact The Guardian self regulates, answering to nobody but the law. Because who would dare to tell the Guardian what is right and wrong. Even though a luxury of their world is access to the studies that tell them where the real world is headed, and what that might mean given their support for Wikipedia as the future of girl's education.

All I know is, from reliable studies, neither the Guardian or the Mail are considered the best or worst newspapers when it comes to health coverage. Since much of the time both the so called reliable sources and the so called tabloids are merely reporting studies. This is why Wikipedia doesn't use newspapers for medical sourcing, period.

But the Mail does publish eight times more stories than the Guardian. So the chances of a study like this getting an airing are higher in the Mail. Even if the headline might not be to your liking. The journalists don't write the headline. It is something even Wikipedia understands, and so doesn't use it to factor into reliability. Unless there's a hate mob in full flow. Then they do.

If you can find me a Guardian journalist interested in this thread, let me know. I'll hand hold them through the task of what you are trying to convey in the OP. The sheer frustration. I'll let them choose if my contribution is relevant.

I won't bother with contacting the Mail, because for some strange reason, the Wikipedia world isn't interested in hearing criticism of Wikipedia in the Mail. No matter how well researched or important.

[AndyTheGrump]

Seek medical help.

[Giraffe Stapler]

From the study:

In addition, we coded for navel piercing which emphasizes a bare midriff.

So navel piercings are used as a proxy for midriff baring. The article does not suggest that the navel itself is considered sexualized.

In some cultures, it is common for infant girls to have pierced ears. In other cultures, having pierced ears or wearing earrings is associated with "coming of age" or something that is a rite of passage. If earrings signify adulthood then a child wearing earrings may be interpreted as sexualization of the child. Pierced navels have only become mainstream in Western culture in the last few decades. They were associated with adulthood and display of the body, but, inevitably, younger people have come to want them because they are popular with the Taylor Swifts and Beyonces of the world. One might do well to look at body image and self-perception in women with navel piercings to see if other factors are also driving this trend.

None of this has to do with sexualization of the navel. Or that navel fetishism is a sign of pedophilia.

[Vigilant]

Time for Crow to find other things to do.

[AndyTheGrump]

Time for Crow to find other things to do.

And preferably somewhere else to do them.

There are several topics that might merit serious discussion here. None of them benefit in any way whatsoever from Kraken/Crow/EndlessWikipediaSock's Gish-gallop walls of text.

[Elinruby]

So, no actual evidence that the article in question has been edited by paedophiles. As expected.

And just how many prepubescent girls are going to be reading a Wikipedia article on navel fetishism, for that matter? If we want to have a serious discussion about the sexualisation of young girls, I suggest we start by focussing on what the study you cite did: the mass media. One could, just as an example, take a look at the Daily Mail's obsession with publishing photo's of an early-teen Kyle Jenner in a bikini linklinklink

Focus on the mass media, yes. But here we are. Yet another thread where you're buying into this myth there is or ever was something special about the Mail in that regard. Were those stories being used as Wikipedia references before the ban? Officially, with the support of the community and its editorial rules? I don't think so.

As for "how many prepubescent girls are going to be reading a Wikipedia article on navel fetishism", to take a leaf from your book, where's your actual evidence that they aren't? Given the state it was in to motivate you starting this thread.

Have you ever even interacted with a prepubescent girl? It is allowed you know. It doesn't make you a pedophile. You can admit it. Don't be afraid of what people here might think. Ever seen how they can often surprise you with their technical literacy? On the fully smart phones they routinely own from this age. And observe first hand their utter obsession with topics such as Taylor Swift's every thought and move. Especially if they have older sisters or older friends.

My cousin has just turned ten. Her best friend is well into eleven, and has just started puberty. Have a guess what the pair prefer to do in their spare time, when they are together. Is it fun childish things, or is obsessively poring over social media and the teen media celebrity culture it feeds them. And thus careering full steam ahead into the world of navel jewelry, as the first step on the road detailed in that study.

And we're talking about a 10 year old child who, unsurprisingly, when on her own, when she hasn't got her phone, is still quite happy to be a child. And I'll tell you this for nothing. Their mass media consumption doesn't include the Daily Mail FFS.

A Mail hater like you probably genuinely couldn't handle knowing that that the eleven year old in question lives in a world where there's nobody talking care of her. Nobody to stop her going where she wants during daylight hours, or routinely baring her navel and it's jewelry as pretty much the only part of her still quite girlish frame she can bare that is meeting the peer pressures she is under to look and feel and behave older than she is.

Both the ten and eleven year old are, without wishing to overstate the risks, for a variety of different reasons, all documented in studies of such things, quite clearly living at greater risk of abuse than most kids. The wandering Giraffe is welcome to assume that's because they know me. I'll not take it personally. I know that's his issue, not mine.

And that this isn't some nightmare oddity. It's the social norm for tens of millions of people in the UK. It is normal. Normalized. The luxury of the Mail hating Guardian reader is they don't have to live in the real world. They can happily pretend the Mail offices are simultaneously housing a bunch of pedophiles and right wing reactionaries, not journalists doing their jobs. Like that makes any sense..

Happy to pretend the Wikipedia model can fund newspapers too. And I guess it does for them. Right down to the fact The Guardian self regulates, answering to nobody but the law. Because who would dare to tell the Guardian what is right and wrong. Even though a luxury of their world is access to the studies that tell them where the real world is headed, and what that might mean given their support for Wikipedia as the future of girl's education.

All I know is, from reliable studies, neither the Guardian or the Mail are considered the best or worst newspapers when it comes to health coverage. Since much of the time both the so called reliable sources and the so called tabloids are merely reporting studies. This is why Wikipedia doesn't use newspapers for medical sourcing, period.

But the Mail does publish eight times more stories than the Guardian. So the chances of a study like this getting an airing are higher in the Mail. Even if the headline might not be to your liking. The journalists don't write the headline. It is something even Wikipedia understands, and so doesn't use it to factor into reliability. Unless there's a hate mob in full flow. Then they do.

If you can find me a Guardian journalist interested in this thread, let me know. I'll hand hold them through the task of what you are trying to convey in the OP. The sheer frustration. I'll let them choose if my contribution is relevant.

I won't bother with contacting the Mail, because for some strange reason, the Wikipedia world isn't interested in hearing criticism of Wikipedia in the Mail. No matter how well researched or important.

oh God here I thought it was just the monarchy he was insane about. What is dead may never die indeed.

[Ron Lybonly]

When young, I always liked Cher's navel but that had more about her curves, flat stomach and general sex appeal. Was I the only one?

She was not a child and I'm not a pedophile.

[Zoloft]

*makes annoyed noise*

[ltbdl]

*makes annoyed noise*

uh, the lock isn't very secure

[Midsize Jake]

uh, the lock isn't very secure

Well, we bought this one from Amazon.

Trying again...

[Zoloft]

uh, the lock isn't very secure

Well, we bought this one from Amazon.

Trying again...

It's got that interlock that keeps you from locking a topic just because you hates it.