Talk:Bolster

blogs only but...

I can only find hearsay blogs online but in Malaysia, a bolster was called a "dutchwife" sounding as one word, stress on the "dutch". Everyone adults and kids had one, a long cotton pillow as in the illustration [at bolster ] – to soak up the sweat & made sleeping easier. The name is not literal or lewd, but using "dutch" the way it's used for "fake" or "substitute" or not real. Examples are "dutch uncle", "dutch treat", "dutch courage" and so on. Ironically, its meaning also implies "bolstering" the missing real thing as in a "dutch uncle" is someone playing the role, an avuncular person, not related. "Dutch courage" is using a stiff drink to bolster lack of strength in a situation. Still can't find an acceptable reference apart from Japanese sex dolls or speculation about wife substitutes, but noted here in case someone can include the Malaysian/Indonesian one with a citation. Also posting this comment at Bamboo wife. Manytexts (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about two entirely different things. As it states at the beginning, a bolster in the West (and since "bolster" is an English word, a bolster is, ipso facto, a Western object) is a support for the back, a kind of supplementary pillow. The dakimakura and various Dutch wives and so on found in East Asia are, clearly, not bolsters. Two separate articles are required: one for bolsters and another for "hugging pillows" or whatever they should be called.

In Britain, bolsters are essentally double length pillows, used at the head of the bed alone or in combination with pillows. This is probably the most common usage of the term in English speaking countries so the article needs to cover this. --Ef80 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Bamboo wife into Bolster

This sourceless article could be better served as a paragraph in a mother article. Coin945 (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging, bamboo wives are notable by themselves and are unique enough to warrant their own article. The issue that the article doesn't cite any sources is an issue with its authors, not the subject. I stumbled across the article while reading an offline book and while researching it found that they were systematically eliminated in Mainland China during their anti-"Four Olds" campaign as well as their unique history in other places. I will gradually start expanding the "Bamboo wife" article, but just because it doesn't cite any sources today doesn't mean that it won't cite any sources tomorrow. Wikipedia is written based on its allowed contributors' interests, not any objective standards so the fact that nobody bothered to expand the article or source it since 2007 says myriads about its contributors but nothing about the subject itself. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]