Talk:Chub (gay slang)

Archives

chaser[edit]

Hmmmm ... I think some discussion about what a "chaser" is is warrented here ... --CMF 21:43, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

And considering that the organizations use the term "chub" rather than "chubby" in their names, why does this article use "chubby"? --Wbkelley 04:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'chubby chaser'[edit]

The term 'chubby chaser' does not neccessarily refer to gay culture AFAIK. Often it involves men and 'chubby' women. --Andy 09:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

listen[edit]

I believe in Wikipedia way too much to do this but I have to tell you it is very hard not to edit "There are bars, organizations and social events specifically catering to this subculture." to say chubculture do you feel me. MissingNo (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chubby chasers are not just gay[edit]

What is with this article? I'm straight, and I have both straight and gay friends, and I've never heard of this word being used for gays ever. It's always used to reference guys that go for fat chicks. Why is this not even mentioned at all, considering heterosexuals make up the majority of the population? Did some LGBT editor just cut it all out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.67.128 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is called "Chub (gay culture)", so it makes sense that it's only about the phenomenon within gay culture. The straight equivalent is handled at Fat fetishism. +An gr 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link[edit]

should there be a link between this and the Fat acceptance movement page?--Extrabatteries (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything directly relevant to gay chubs in naafa.org, which I removed. However if you think Fat acceptance movement is relevant, it might be good to add it in a ==See also== section. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Gay Chub[edit]

The link for The Gay Chub should still be included into this particular article. It's classified as a dating site but honestly any social networking site can easily be constituted as such. The intention on having it on Wikipedia is not for pagerank as it already topranks in Google for the keyword niches already and the nofollow attribute is already known, no intent on increasing PR with the link. User Blogs and even The Gay Chub's FAQ details information regarding the chub culture within the gay community with blogs from chubs and chasers themselves, about daily life as a gay chub, persecution, health risks involved being a chub, etc.

So again, Link Content is "relevant" to the content of this article. Do you guys not actually review submitted links before you remove them outright? Most certainly seems so as relevant links and content get removed just because someone decides to perform a rollback. Check the sources and the links before making brash decisions. I'm aware Wikipedia is not a link directory, hosting service, etc. Mayhaps I should've just linked to several blog entries and created far more than just a singular link? 98.174.226.196 (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wow, i could not disagree with you more, there must be at least a dozen wikipedia policies i could cite regarding this above simply post. --Extrabatteries (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wondering, this edit contains the link in question. Contrary to the above speculation by the anon editor, I did review this link before reverting it as contrary to Wikipedia:External links, being neither unique in service nor a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a repository of "relevant" links—it is an encyclopedia. Thank you for discussing this, rather than continuing to insert the link. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so it indeed was looked through, fine, I accept that. Now go forth through the rest of wikipedia and revert those pages back to original as well when it contains information regarding a timeline that's too vague to really mean much of anything without any citated sources for said timeline. You can even read an EncyclopediaDramatica article on it and it's pretty accurate against Wikipedia. Stuff like "Around a 100 years ago". Don't start me on "Reliable Sources", Wikipedia is full of "unreliable" sources and lack thereof. I've even edited a few pages here with corrected info and cited the exact resources to certain studies from universities in America and they got reverted back as being "unreliable" but the blog posts to personal blogs were "reliable". Pfft. 98.174.226.196 (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should, and you should. if its a chronic problem the solution isnt to keep doing it. sign up for an account and correct errors as you see them, but research what is acceptable, it is not a matter of presumption or opinion, there are guides.--Extrabatteries (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More information...[edit]

Hi Angr! Thanks for keeping this page. There is a very good 1999 publication called "Organization, Specialization, and Desires in the Big Men's Movement: Preliminary Research in the Study of Subculture-Formation" by Alex Robertson Textor (University of Michigan), that covers the history and development of the Bigmens' movement (better known as the Chub Chaser community these days). I believe a lot of the information in this publication can be useful for expanding the Chub (gay culture) article, ideally to add more information about the first Girth & Mirth club, its beginnings and how the clubs spread throughout North America, Europe and Australia to then help foster the movement. The publication also covers the Bears movement, and its overlaps and conflicts with the Bigmen's community. I think a lot of this information cab be helpful for this article, and to help expand Wiki with new articles on related subjects like Girth & Mirth clubs, etc. What do you think? -KF — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnottyFox (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Angr (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Content![edit]