Talk:Gay bathhouse/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Mediation (pt 1)

Sam, please describe what you find objectionable about the article, as is. Be as specific as possible - cite specific phrases or sentences to support your assertion(s), and how you would like to see them fixed. →Raul654 03:19, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

First Sentence

' Gay bathhouses, also known as (gay) saunas or steam baths (and sometimes called, in gay slang in some regions, "baths" or "tubs"), are places where men can go to have sex with other men (note that not only men who identify as gay patronise gay bathhouses). '

This introduces to topic of it being "a" place to have sex w men. It does not explain (nor does the article generally explain) why this would be done in this establishment, and why an extreme of promiscuity would be engaged in. It does not address the context (this sort of behaviour is either taboo, in opposition to cultural mores or outright illegal in 99+ of the earth). That is extremely POV. Sam [Spade] 03:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First sentence -- response

  • The article explains quite clearly the development, and the need for, gay bathhouses. See the History section (which I won't C&P here).
  • Nowhere in the article does it claim that "an extreme of promiscuity" is engaged in in bathhouses.
  • Is public, anonymous and/or promiscuous sex taboo, in opposition to cultural mores or outright illegal in "99+ of the earth"? (do you mean in over 99% of countries? This is a bit unclear). At any rate, legal issues are discussed in the Legal Issues section.

Since we're both here, can you give me a chance to respond before you can continue? Also, are you planning to dispute every single sentence? Because if you are this is going to take a very long time and we're going to have repeated edit conflicts.Exploding Boy 03:57, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I do not intend to engage in revert wars with you. If you refuse to allow others to improve "your" article, I will be the bigger man and walk away. For now we are discussing, which I am ok with so long as you minimize personal attacks and threats, and other abusive behaviours. Sam [Spade] 04:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam, relax. I'm talking about edit conflicts on this talk page. Let me clarify: since we're both here discussing this now, when you post something please give me a chance to respond before you post something else. Exploding Boy 04:10, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Actually I dislike the format for flowing conversation (as this seems to be), would you like to to go to IRC or some such? Sam [Spade] 04:23, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I think we should keep it here. Exploding Boy 04:32, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that, as EB says, the "why..establishment" part of sam's objection is addressed in the history section. As to the other half of the objection - "why an extreme of promiscuity would be engaged in" seems (to me) impossible to me to answer - why does anyone do anything? →Raul654 07:30, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Second Sentence

' Bathhouses for women are much more rare, though some men's bathhouses will occasionally have "lesbian" or "women-only" nights. '

Why? Why don't women go there, and leave doors open, presenting one portion of their anatomy or another towards the air in prospect of random sexuality? Why don't straight people do this? Is it a normal thing to do, random sex with others? Why is this oddity not addressed? Sam [Spade] 03:54, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Second Sentence -- response

  • The above post is clearly homophobic and confrontational and I refuse to address it until you reword it. Exploding Boy 03:58, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Please do not engage in ad hominem. Please be aware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and be aware that I do not like to be refered to as "homophobe". Sam [Spade] 04:03, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My comment stands. Revise your wording. Exploding Boy 04:05, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

No (post by user Sam Spade)
  • Sam, it's not hard to see where EB is coming from, and his request is not a burdensome one - in the interests of resolving this, would you please rephrase your comment. →Raul654 04:09, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
I do not remotely agree. My comment well illustrates the shocking nature of this topic, and is signifigantly less shocking/offensive than some of the articles casual revelations. Sam [Spade] 04:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Much as I think EB is being overly strident here, I have to agree with his assessment - the comment is offensive. Your objection to the article appears to be that you want it to focus on the controversy surrounding promiscuous sex. I think that would only get in the way of the information in the article. There are better articles to deal with that controversy. As I've cited before, Punctuated equilibrium does not reference creationism. Snowspinner 04:10, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

You find this topic shocking. Others do not. It's not up to wikipedia to tell us what to think, it's up to us as readers to draw our own conclusions. Exploding Boy 04:18, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Sam, I think it is counterproductive to suggest that random sexual encounters are not undertaken by some straight people. In a town in my state in the past, there was a street in which brothels lined the streets, and the prostitutes would sit provocatively inside these wooden booth-type things, with the door wide open, waiting for clients. - Mark 04:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Prostitution is a different subject, with completely different motivation. Sam [Spade] 05:00, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The clients making use of the services of the prostitute would seem to have the same motivation as those using bathhouses - random sex. A similar concept is swingers' parties. - Mark 07:03, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Third Sentence

' Bathhouses vary considerably in size and amenities – from small establishments with ten or twenty rooms and a handful of lockers to multi-storey saunas with a variety of room styles or sizes and several steam baths, jacuzzi tubs and sometimes even swimming pools – but nearly all have at least one steam room (or wet sauna), as well as lockers and small private rooms. '

The look of the place is not suited for this part of the article, and should be moved further down, into layout and amenities. This is a structural failing. This portion would be better adressed to an overview of the extremely controvercial nature of these sorts of establishments. Who owns them, and why arn't they in jail? Are the authorities generally aware of them? Can they be found in the phone book? The troubles with this article are numerous, intrinsic, and systematic. As long as they continue to be unnadressed and rejected as irrelevent, the article will suffer, as will the casual reader. Sam [Spade] 03:59, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are not so much looking to revise the current article as rewrite it, Sam. Snowspinner 04:05, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
You are correct, it isn't very good upon thorough inspection. Sam [Spade] 04:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it's a bad article on promiscuous sex. Then again, it's not on promiscuous sex. It's on gay bathouses. Snowspinner 04:11, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
That fails to address my statements. Sam [Spade] 04:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You're trying to change the topic of the article to address the shocking nature of promiscuous sex. Aside from the fact that I'm not particularly shocked by promiscuous sex, I think that the "shocking" or "offensive" nature of something is better left to the reader. The most NPOV way to address it is going to be to describe, calmly and succinctly, what happens at gay bathouses. Those inclined to share your shock will find it shocking and offensive, as you do, and will decide that gay bathouses are a bad thing. Those of us who are indifferent will come to a similar conclusion. I suggest you review the concept of NPOV - particularly the section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view that talks about Hitler, and whether or not it is necessary to say that Hitler is an evil man. A similar line of reasoning applies here. Snowspinner 04:16, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

the article should not say anything is bad. The article should address how overwhelmingly negative the general opinion is on this, as the Hitler article does. Don't lecture me on policy, MR. 3 months ;). Sam [Spade] 04:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is it overwhelmingly negative? How do you know? You and two others have objected on moral grounds. Of a community of thousands that's pretty underwhelming if you ask me. Exploding Boy 04:25, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'd love to explore some wiki/online demographics with you sometime. Sadly there isn't much of anything available. Sam [Spade] 05:03, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Third Sentence -- response

This is typical of your approach to articles on gay-related topics: you think they are all controversial (that's spelt with an "s," not a "c" by the way) and you want to put such remarks in the lead paragraph or section. This is rarely appropriate, and it's not appropriate here.

In fact, bathhouses are really not all that controversial. Who owns them and why are they not in jail? Are the authorities aware of them? Read the article; the information's in there. Exploding Boy 04:04, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not engage in ad hominem insults (like petty spelling corrections or suggesting I have not reviewed the material at hand). I do not agree that these issues are well addressed in the article.

Sam, assuming that you are asking sincerely, and your language doesn't seem to indicate that, I will try to explain sentence two. For a long time, homosexual acts were illegal. Being branded a homosexual could land someone in jail--it would certainly destroy their reputation and standing in the community in ways we cannot begin to imagine today. As a result, gay men often hesitated to get involved in committed relationships. Instead they found random partners, often anonymous, so as not to get into trouble. There were problems of potential entrapment and of blackmail, so the less people knew about who was gay, the better. By the way, even today, these problems exist. George Michael was caught in what he claims was entrapment, while there are plenty of outings and potential blackmail in tabloids. Anonymity became a survival technique. Women may have faced these problems, but to a lesser degree. Lesbianism, for various reasons, did not have the same stigma attached to it as male homosexuality. It was not criminal in the U.K. and "Boston marriages" (two unmarried women living together) was not uncommon in the U.S. Over time, these forms of meeting potential partners entered gay culture. In effect, they were forced on gay culture by heterosexual society's failure to accept gays. Danny 04:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually I think some explanation of this would benefit the article. Also my obvious questions (doesn't everyone want/need a commited relationship of some sort? Isn't random sex w strangers extremely dangerous and disgusting? Doesn't EVERY decent person of any sexual type find these things profoundly offensive?) are not addressed whatsoever. We seem to have the "who where when and how" but what about the "why"? Sam [Spade] 04:20, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I resent the implication that I am not a decent person. Snowspinner 04:34, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Same here, frankly. Sex with strangers is not by definition dangerous or disgusting or offensive. As for random sex, I'm not sure what that is but I think I'd like to try it... Exploding Boy 04:37, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

"Doesn't EVERY decent person of any sexual type find these things profoundly offensive?" - by definition, that is POV bias. Generally, since most people can't read minds (I being one of the few exceptions), answering "why" questions tends to lead to POV bias as well. →Raul654 04:22, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
Try a poll. Sam [Spade] 04:32, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be insulting, I've just noticed you frequently misspell that word. I apologize. However, it does seem you have not read the article thoroughly. Your concerns are addressed in the legal issues section and elsewhere. Exploding Boy 04:14, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
here and now is not the best place for spelling corrections, but I accept the appology. Sam [Spade] 04:15, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You use words like "dangerous," "disgusting," "decent," and "profoundly offesnive." Isn't that inserting value judgments? Furthermore, maybe if society would have left them alone, they would not have had to act that way. Danny 04:26, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Back to the third sentence, the reason why the article is laid out as it is is because I knew that many people would not be familiar with this institution. It's important to have a lead-in section that informs the reader. Exploding Boy 04:17, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

of course. I am saying this intro fails to inform. Sam [Spade] 04:20, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm moving the "spelling" controversy back where it was. We don't need a dedicated section on it and it just breaks the flow of the discussion to have it at the very bottom.

You think the intro doesn't inform the reader. I think that you're trying to insert non-neutral point of view (from your own posts: "Isn't random sex w strangers extremely dangerous and disgusting? Doesn't EVERY decent person of any sexual type find these things profoundly offensive?") into the article. Exploding Boy 04:23, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation, part 2.

Raul seems to have disappeared, but we need to consolidate the above discussion somehow. Since he offered to take part in the mediation, if snowspinner has no objections I'd like to ask him to do it. Exploding Boy 04:40, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, mediation requires an impartial mediator. SS isn't impartial, and I'm not remotely convinced raul is either. Besides, mediation is for intractable debate, and we appear to be communicating on our own. Sam [Spade] 04:44, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think Exploding Boy was asking me to step in in his place, not in Raul's. Snowspinner 04:50, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
I have a suggestion. Sam - rather than stating your objection to every sentence, why don't you simply rewrite the first paragraph as you would like to see it? That way, we can compare versions. →Raul654 04:49, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

NO, I might a) do a terrible job, and make things worse than they are by inspiring debate over mistakes I would make, and would definitely b) not enjoy the editing experience. I really don't want to spend much more time discussing this at all. Can we accept that I object to specifics within the article, not only its general catagory of "offensive" topics, and leave it at that for now? I have made it clear all along that I did not see myself as the editor best suited for substantially rewriting this article. Sam [Spade] 04:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I feel as though your objections aren't really germaine to this article. You're describing a need to address objections to a particular lifestyle. But this article isn't on a particular lifestyle. It's on one very limited facet of a particular lifestyle. I would agree with you if this were the general article, but as a specific article, I think that generalized objections are inappropriate. Snowspinner 04:59, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

If you removed your NPOV message and your objections to this article's candidacy as a featured article, I'd agree to that. Exploding Boy 04:54, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Links

These links provide a range of information on the subject. Sam [Spade] 04:41, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What exaclty is the purpose of those links? Two of them say nothing about bathhouses (the second one basically says that the so-called "gay lifestyle" is depraved), and the one that does says nothing relevant to this discussion.

Let me remind you that you agreed to this mediation process. We seem to be getting nowhere because your own negative point of view is getting in the way. Exploding Boy 04:48, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Whatever. I agreed to the mediation process, which involves announcing ourselves on RFM and mutually selecting a mediator. That has yet to occur. As far as I'm concerned we've just been fooling about with "mediation" here rather than having a formal "mediation" and I am doubtful of the need for mediation (progress seems to be being made, and some minimums of civility are in effect). That said I will agree to whatever is necessary, and will be as compliant with policy as possible. I do not refuse mediation. Sam [Spade] 04:56, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, you agreed to THIS mediation process, not the one of RFM. If you just wanted to hash it out here, why'd it take you so long to come here? Oh forget it. Progress is being made? How exactly? I'm serious, please tell me because I don't see it. Exploding Boy 04:58, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

OK, so formally request mediation.
  1. I am here.
  2. I am communicating.
  3. I am providing specifics and evidence.
  4. You are being rude and confrontational.

Sam [Spade] 05:05, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Am I? Am I being rude and confrontational? I suppose you think you're not? Even your post above betrays your homophobia. How exactly are "pro-gay" and "pro-family" in opposition? Beyond that, how do those links contribute anything to this discussion?

Basically, so far, you've managed to provide no evidence of non-neutral point of view, and you've refused to give an example of how you'd rework what you termed a problem section. I think this entire business stems from the fact that you find this subject morally objectionable and want to do whatever you can to keep if off the front page. Exploding Boy 05:14, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

You cannot formally request mediation until requests for comment are filed. If you do not have faith in the other's motives, I suggest you poll the community to see what they think of the article as it stands and/or sam's complaints. →Raul654 05:22, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to request mediation, but I will if this foolishness continues. Exploding Boy 05:25, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the "pro-gay" and "pro-family" as per complaint, but as you can see I strove to provide even displays of facts. I would like to see the personal nature of criticisms, hostility, and emotions in general here to decline or preferably to be removed entirely. For the record I do not assume bad motives on the part of EB, but rather criticise this particular article, and some of the response to my criticisms. Sam [Spade] 05:34, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Status of mediation

Just to clarify, if EB is asking that I step in for him as the person representing the view that the article is acceptable as it stands, I am willing to do so. However, in this case, I ask that he not address Sam's points directly on this talk page. One of my goals in agreeing to do this would be to minimize the tensions. (That is not to say he should bite his tongue - he's welcome to privately direct me towards things he'd like to see remarked upon. I'd just like it if he backed off and let things cool down, because I think that the high tensions currently being displayed are beneficial to nobody. Snowspinner 05:28, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)


I've listed this article on both wikipedia: requests for comment and wikipedia: peer review (thought I doubt that will help). Exploding Boy 05:34, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you removed the above inflammatory taglines, but still the very links you provide are non-neutral. The first link basically supports the view that STDs can be transmitted and drugs used in bathhouses. Both are mentioned in the article. The second link is not even worth reading, cluttered as it is with outdated "references" (and in particular when looking at that site's main page). The third link is a random collection of statistics, many of which are covered in the homosexuality article. Once again, these links do NOTHING to add to this discussion. I don't understand why you're posting them here. They are simply obfuscating the real issue. Exploding Boy 05:42, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Just a heads-up for those keeping a close eye on the article: I've added a few lines here and there, notably in the opening paragraph. If they're unclear or POV, let me know. -Sean Curtin 08:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the NPOV dispute

As it has been over a week since Sam Spade essentially abandoned what discussion there was, and since his objections are clearly baseless as demonstrated above, I'd like to remove the NPOV dispute from the page. Any objections? Exploding Boy 01:35, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

of course, scroll up. Sam [Spade] 02:13, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your objections have been dealt with. Exploding Boy 02:15, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

It remains my belief that if a user is going to put a NPOV tag on an article, it's their obligation to continue dealing with the article, and to not declare it too unpleasant. So, my feeling is that Sam's complaints, as they stand, are kind of without foundation. He's unwilling to make a pass at a new version of the article, and there's been some serious question as to whether or not his complaints are germane to this article. (Unless I miss something up above, he's yet to address my point that this is an article on an aspect of promiscuity, not on promiscuity as such, nor my point that those who find the behavior in question unpleasant are likely to be capable of finding it so without guidance from Wikipedia. Without willing participation in the process of addressing and discussing his objections, I don't think that the objections are such that they should be mentioned on the page. Snowspinner 02:22, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

See, I agree with this. It's not fair to slap an NPOV message on an article and then just abandon it. Exploding Boy 02:29, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. For reference, I've been involved in the discussion/argument on the FAC subpage, in a very similar manner to Exploding Boy. I noticed the heading in the FAC page and was intrigued, as a gay man who, on occasion, has frequented saunas. The article is, imho, well written, factually accurate and NPOV. It provides information about the facet of some gay men's lifestyle that is visiting saunas, it neither endorses nor denounces either saunas or promiscuity.
At the risk of verging towards ad hominem attacks (to which Sam Spade rightly objects), the impression I have received, solely from reading the discussion on the FAC subpage, is that Sam is uncomfortable with the subject matter (which is perfectly understandable, I can't imagine men who aren't gay would really like to spend a large amount of time contemplating homosexual promiscuity) and objects to the article becoming FAC. It seems to me (and I apologise if I'm mistaken, I'm merely documenting the inferences I've made from reading the discussion) that the latter stems from the former.
Personally, I think it's a very well written article about a subject no less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than any other. I still support the bid for FA status and I do not believe that this article is anything other than NPOV; I would certainly vote for the removal of the NPOV message.
Consider that my five-minute peer review. For the record, I have neither met nor spoken with Exploding Boy in any venue other than the Talk: pages on this site. OwenBlacker 00:23, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)