Talk:Smoking fetishism

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

This article, which replaced an earlier and more informative one, is worded illiterately and filled with doubtful and probably unverifiable assertions. The second section concerns the specialized use of cigarettes in S&M pornography, which may be unrelated, or only slightly related, to the paraphilia for smoking per se. If the earlier article on the topic is unavailable for revising and footnoting, perhaps the entire entry should be deleted.Cantoohide (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)cantoohideReply[reply]

One of the best sources of information on the smoking fetish is —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Provided site does not have any information on the smoking fetish, it is just an collection of links to the information about the smoking, but none of them is about the smoking fetish, and many of them are blogs and other unreliable sources, so this qualifies as an link spam. -- (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See which is not link spam but links to images that fetishers are interested in (those who care about celebrities). It's still not proof of the fetish, nor information about it. The site is still not proof but is an example of how many sites support it. Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All fetishes are classically conditioned. They are reflexes that the person that has one has no control over. A parallel would be Pavlov's dog. The dog had a natural response of salivation when given meat. The experimenter would deliver meat to the dog and it salivated 100% of the time. The experimenter then started ringing a bell at the same time it delivered the meat. Eventually the experimenter would stop delivering the meat and just ring the bell. The dog now salivated 100% of the time from just the ringing of the bell. The same thing happens in humans. We have a natural sexual reaction. This is many times paired with stimuli that may or may not be considered sexual, but if given the right circumstances these stimuli can provoke the same sexual reaction that occurs naturally by just happening at the same time a person is sexually stimulated on a number of occasions. Since this can happen with any stimuli, never occurs the same in individuals, and can sometimes have no logical basis those without the experiences that cause a fetish do not understand them and consider them strange. That is too bad because they are natural and can be very healthy if given the right environment to exist in.

my guess (from personal experience) is that paraphilias are often down to imprinting (as in ducklings imprinting that the first moving thing they see is mother). I have a half-memory (I think I was hypnotized to try to remove it) that my mother attempted to stop my infantile masturbation by distracing me with her smoking. An interesting topic for research but not something worthy of publishing here (original research with a sample size of one). Bdf2718 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
please sign your posts. Exploding Boy 18:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Is it common for people with a smoking fetish to share it with other women, friends of theirs? Is it common for people to be in a monogomous long-term relationship with only one of the partners experiences a smoking fetish?

Is it common for people with a smoking fetish to share it with other women, friends of theirs? Is it common for people to be in a monogomous long-term relationship with only one of the partners experiences a smoking fetish? mirandaXXOO

from personal experience, it used to be common to be in the closet about it because we thought we were alone. The internet changed things... Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

Can a responsible editor check to see if there are nay useful external links for this article? Somehow it has become a target for linkspam. -Will Beback 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subfetishes not really fetishes[edit]

Some of the subfetishes do not really seem to be fetishes in the technical sense of the word (i.e., a sexual attraction towards an object or body parts). Forced smoking seems more of a submissive thing, and there is no "object" here. Human ashtray similarly is a submissive or masochistic act. I've reworded it accordingly. Mdwh 01:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there are many subfetishes. Like the preference for all-whites as opposed to cork tips (or vice-versa). Or long ashes as opposed to short ashes. Or french inhales. Or rings. Or multiple exhales. Or tight cone exhales. Or... Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed a bunch of text[edit]

I removed a bunch of text which was entirely unsourced and probably original research. Feel free to put it back if reliable sources can be found. Here is the text I took out: " Related paraphilia Forced smoking Forced smoking is where people like to be forced to smoke cigarettes. Sometimes this can be with a cigarette forced into their mouths, or it can be having smoke blown into your mouth.

See Coherent Light videos. Not my thing but they exist.

Pregnant smoking Pregnant smoking is where people love to see heavily pregnant women smoking cigarettes or cigars. It depends upon the individual as to whether the 'turn-on' is the damage that smoking while pregnant can do, or whether it's just how the 'bare stomached' woman sucks in the smoke or holds the cigarette

Smoke play 

Smoke play covers a wide range of acts from smoking during sex or foreplay, to a woman using her cigarette as a tool to turn-on a man.

Coughing fetishism Coughing fetishism is a sexual fetish in which people like to watch other people coughing. It is often related to the smoking fetish.

Some people fascinated with coughing require a certain sound or effect, such as a smoker's cough, a dry cough, a wet, productive cough, emphysema, etc. For some, it's more important to hear a cough than to watch it.

Human Ashtray 

Human Ashtray is where people like to be used as an ashtray for people who smoke. This can involve holding an ashtray for the smoker or having ash flicked into their hand.

Another part of this is to have your mouth used as the ashtray, having cigarette ash flicked into your mouth, and sometimes having the cigarette put out in the mouth, sometimes causing burns. The "ashtray" is sometimes made to eat the cigarette end.

Sometimes people have cigarette ash flicked onto their body, and have the cigarette put out on their body - again causing burns."

Several commercial and non-commercial smoking fetish sites on the web prove that these sub-fetishes actually exist. See, for example and the sites linked thereon. --Langec 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, they don't prove that. They could all be attempts by cigarette companies to circumvent advertising bans and promotional bans by making smoking seem appealing. I KNOW they're not, because I'm part of that community. But then if I were I tobacco shill I would say that, wouldn't I? This, in my opinion, is the fundamental problem (as far as the editors are concerned) of this article. Is it real? Short of submitting to a plethysmograph test I don't know how it could be proven. And, at my age, it may not work anyway. And even if it did, I'm a sample size of one. Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This page definitely needs a Bill Clinton reference! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I don't mean to start an edit war. But I am going to Be Bold and get the hell rid of this. If an intelligent discussion and vote indicates putting it back up, I won't object. But this certainly doesn't strike me as the kind of NPOV writing encouraged in Wikipedia. Adding him to a "list of notable people with smoking fetishes" page would be one thing. Placing Bill Clinton in the "see also" section of a page on Kuwait would also be another thing. But, regardless of whoever's juices may have flavored his cigar, that's the sort of thing that belongs in Conservapedia, I believe. Malenkylizards 22:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

F**k Conservapedia, I just thought it was worth some sort of subtle mention, a documentary on the smoking fetish I saw mentioned it.Al-man53 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why A Picture Of A Man?[edit]

It doesn't make since to me to have a picture of a man on the front of this page when the vast majority of smoke fetishers are heterosexual men. A picture of a female smoking would much better represent the fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmouse 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)PmouseReply[reply]

@Pmouse Agreed! Rsngfrce (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Socially unacceptable?[edit]

It is but I wouldn't consider it one of the most Socially unacceptable, I suppose it would depend on what level the fetish goes to but compared to say Coprophilia, Necrophilia, Biastophilia and Pedophilia its saint like!!! Al-man53 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

some of us with the fetish have serious worries about the sort of implicit emotional blackmail that can result in revealing it to a partner. "Keep smoking or I leave you." And some of us don't care because we think with our small brain. There are ethical issues. Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced material[edit]

This article has been tagged as unsourced for over a year. I've gone ahead and removed all the unsourced material, which was 95% of the article. As we find sources we can add additional info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If folks keep adding unsourced material to this article we may have to propose it for deletion. Or, put more accurately, if we can't find even a single relaible source for this then it isn't notable enough for an article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason I re-added the old material is that is was a full article, albeit unsourced. Whereas what's left now is a single sentence and in my opinion an article is better than a sentence, especially one which just rewords the title. 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only way that we can tell bullshit from good shit is if the material can be verified. We've asked for sources for a year and none have appeared. If we can't find a source in the next week I'll nominate it for deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, see WP:V, including: If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For these types of articles, the only sources available are the websites and newsgroups already referenced, and educated reasoning taking into account society's pressures and the existing sources. 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of those are reliable sources for WP purposes. Many fetishes are mentioned in scientific literature. Sites that do mention smoking fetishism often commercial sites that cater to fetishists, but don't tell us anything about the fetish itself. For example, or Smoke Signals (magazine). is neutral, but we usually don't consider one-person sites to be reliable unless the author is a recognized expert (and in ths case he or she is anonymous, so that's a second trike against it). I suppose the existence of newsgroups is self-evident so we can mention their existence but we still can't use anything in them as references. What other sources are you proposing? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS: I won't propose it for deletion in the near future due to it's recent AfD, which I just noticed at the top of the page. However I do see that most participants said the article should be stripped down or stubbed, and so we're following that recommendation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But when you only take those sources into account you'll most likely just end up with a very scientific article which won't reflect the social aspects of a smoking fetish. Also, is it really necessary to cite sources for common sense statements such as "Smoking fetishism ("capnolagnia") is a sexual fetish consisting of the smoking of tobacco and/or marijuana"?!?! 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whose opinion is that? It's not a fact (and no, it's not "common sense", either) Merriam-Webster doesn't define "capnolagnia". Wikipedia is supposed to include only material that is verifiably true. Valrith 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(EC) Regarding the anon's last point, I'm not sure why the {fact} tag was added to that sentence. I suppose we could omit the names of the products being smoked. Regarding the possible sources, is there any specific page in the commercial sites or any specific posting in the newsgroups that we think has useful information for this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found several sources that I think would be appropriate for this article. The main one is an article in the Wall Street Journal that has some basics about the fetish. Unfortunately this article isn't freely available, but if you have a way to access ProQuest (most libraries have access) the url is The title of the article is "Drag Queens: Paula Puffs and Her Fans Watch, Enraptured --- `Smoxploitation' Films Signal That Smoking Is Becoming A Fetish Among Many" and it's in the Jan 31, 1996 edition of the WSJ. The other sources are alternative weeklies, and I'm not sure if they would be counted as "reputable", but they were published. There's a good overview of the fetish from the Boston Phoenix: There are a couple articles about the people who make videos for smoking fetishists, one from the Cleveland Scene ( and another from the Village Voice:,gray,38421,1.html. Hope I did this right, I'm new here so go easy on me! POVpushee 07:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I don't see the relevance of the current statements about newsgroups. I doubt it's possible to find a reliable source that tells when newsgroups were created, but even if it is, I don't think they're notable... Valrith 21:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would seem self evident that the newsgroups are concerned with smoking fetishism, based on their titles alone. Since you've added {fact} tags to every sentence in this stub, can you propose how you'd like the article to read? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if their existence is self evident, what makes them relevant? I don't have a specific way I'd "like the article to read", I'd just like to see its statements be relevant and backed up by reliable sources... Valrith 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The situation we're in is that the article just survived an AfD, so we can't just nominate it for deletion. Since we have no sources, we really can't say anything verifiable, and can't assert that anything is relevant. We can't even prove that "smoking feitshism" is a fetish concerning smoking. What's our solution? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DRV? Seriously, how can this article have survived AfD except by administrative malfeasance? The article was prodded, and the prod lasted 5 days, but the admin that should have then deleted it took it to AfD instead, where another admin closed the AfD early. Valrith 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please assume good faith on the part of others. As for these fetish articles, they suffer from too much text supported by few or no sources. I see you edit Breast fetishism, so you know what I mean (not a single listed source actually refers to breast fetishism). I think we should begin chopping all of them down to what's verifiable. Perhaps minor fetishes should be combined into a single article. I've posted a question about this on the main article's talk page, Talk:Sexual fetishism#Unsourced articles on fetishes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply] was mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article on smoking fetishism, so I think that provides notability. Here's the quote: "Smoking buffs also congregate on the Internet at "," a news group featuring a list of hundreds of women celebrities and whether they smoke on-screen or "IRL" (in real life)." From the article "Drag Queens: Paula Puffs and Her Fans Watch, Enraptured --- `Smoxploitation' Films Signal That Smoking Is Becoming A Fetish Among Many" by Suein L. Hwang, Jan 31, 1996. pg. A.1. Unfortunately the article is not freely available, but it can be found in the WSJ's pay-only archive and on ProQuest ( Should I add the citation to the article? POVpushee 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply] effectively died many years ago. It was unmoderated so became a spam-haven. It was replaced by the moderated alt.smokers.glamour. Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diagnosis and medical treatment section?[edit]

You have got to be kidding..a section addressing "diagnosis", "misdiagnosis", and whether or not "medical treatment" is necessary for sexual fetishes today, in 2011? The 1950s are over and this section really should go. (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please, please, please remove this link. Can't you see that this is a semi-porn site targeted to the fetishists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the only evidence that there IS a smoking fetish is that sites like this one try to insert themselves here. And even that could be a ploy by big tobacco. Dunno what I can do to convince you guys that this fetish is real. Bdf2718 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silka Winsome blog unreliable[edit]

Her blog is not a reliable source for stating that the smell of smoke is a turn-on for men, for if it were, then women would also be turned on by men doing the same thing. What makes smoking a turn-on for men is the woman, not the smoke, and even then, the turn-on sensation is merely situational. When some straight men picture or see a woman smoking, it makes the smoke seem more pleasant to them; but if these same men picture or see a man doing it, then it isn't as stimulating. Plus, it helps tremendously if the men find the smoking woman attractive. Of course, there are also those men who aren't turned on by women smoking at all. In fact, some men are even turned off by a woman smoking.

In addition, the author admits that she is a smoker herself, which means that her sense of smell isn't properly calibrated. Those who often inhale first-hand smoke directly into their lungs will always find exhaled smoke more fragrant than the smoke that they're used to inhaling. In fact, those who are used to the smell of first-hand smoke don't notice the smell of it like non-smokers do, so anything more fragrant by comparison will smell good, even sweet. Also, those who hang around smokers all the time are so used to the strong sidestream smoke, that they also find the weaker exhaled smoke more fragrant by comparison. But try doing an experiment with non-smokers who don't hang around smokers, and you'll most likely find that there isn't much difference between inhaled and uninhaled smoke. Both are just as offensive and pungent, even though one smell is slightly weaker than the other.

Here's a link to the blog in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Role of marketing & tobacco industry involvement[edit]

How do editors feel about including recent press reports about the tobacco industry's efforts to use social media influencers? Eg. ("Netnografica conducted interviews with young social media influencers who were paid to promote cigarettes online to millions of followers without disclosing that they were engaged in paid advertising. Key findings from the investigation conclude that tobacco companies seek out young people who have significant numbers of followers online and pay them to post photos featuring Marlboro, Lucky Strike and other cigarette brands.")

It seems this is at the root of public porn blogs like for example (I won't hyperlink to porn here but if editors want to check it out) a blog like marlbororedsperv (dot) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Terrible info[edit]

IMO, this page does such a TERRIBLE job of explaining true capnolagnia that it is laughable, but I have NO interest in getting into an edit war Rsngfrce (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]