Talk:Play party (BDSM)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Sexuality Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2008. The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008 May 9. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] A dress code ...

A dress code doesn't really prevent non-kinky people from entering a party to simply "get a look at tits&ass", as the Decadance website puts it. They simply have to have enough determination and money to buy fetish clothes and then go to the party. Wearing fetish clothes doesn't automatically make one kinky.

What a dress code does prevent is drunken middle-aged men passing by the party by pure coincidence, thinking "'ere, what's all this then?" and entering on impulse. — JIP | Talk 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of all content

The page has just survived an attempt to delete it. Now somebody removes every single statement that is not backed up by a reference. (Leaving 2 lines). Supporting their action by reference to a Wiki policy whereby content may be removed if not properly referejnced. I have recently removed one claim that seemed untrue but everything else is very much in line with the many online sources that I've looked at. There is such a thing as Wikilawyereing and I do believe that using a rule that alows the removal of dodgy content to all but delete an article is an example of such. Sexuality articles should conform to the same standards as those on other subjects but do not have to pass any higher tests. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that these other claims be verified. I for one am not sure any of them are accurate... and have yet to see any evidence. Please stop violating WP:V and actually provide references per that core policy. --Rividian (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added 1 extra online reference. Those seeking to delete material should consult these first. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have re-reverted the removal of content. As far as I can see this is not a POV dispute as to whether the content is right or not but an attempt to destroy the page. No account has been taken of the additional references supplied or of the comments I have made on the discussion page. I have no hesitation in stating that I am reverting vandalism. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not sure any of these claims are accurate. WP:V requires clear, i.e. inline, citation for questionable claims. --Rividian (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:V is a policy to promote a good encyclopedia by putting the burden of proof for controversial or odd-seeming material on those wanting to add it. Few (if any) articles have an inline citation for every sentence. To require such a thing and to use it as a pretext to remove all content is taking a principle beyond commonsense and in effect Wikilawyering]. The external links at the bottom of the page back much of what is here and I'm at a loss to see that any of it is controversial (apart from it being about taboo subject matter). --Simon Speed (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that I come off like a jerk, but still... the content in this article is really not very good. The entire etiquette section reads like a how-to guide and should probably not come back regardless of sourcing. Claims about the legality of these things, though, are something I really think we should have sourced, even if I agree they do belong in the article. Giving no legal information is much better than giving inaccurate legal information. I could make this same sourcing argument for any article... honestly, people should probably do it more often... it is good for the project to make sure stuff in any given article can actually be backed up, like it's supposed to be. I'm not really sure how reliable a FAQ for "disciplinecorps.com" is. --Rividian (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be hard to source this article. A friend of mine had a shelf full of BDSM-related books including numerous "introductory" titles that described play parties and indeed covered all or most of the stuff in this article. Sadly we no longer live in the same city so I'm not able to borrow some books and source it up myself, but if anyone owns any introductory BDSM books it should be easy to go over this article and source it. --202.168.39.34 (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to edit war, but the removal of content is totally destructive. If the principle under which it is done is accepted, we will find it very difficult to build a page and other pages will be open to similar attack. I had one book on the subject and the wannabe page deleter was able to check this reference within minutes. Why wasn't the reference just added in the first place? If the supposed objector to content would replace material based more closely on the sources I have added I would be happy, but this sort of destruction makes me shy away from even trying to add/improve anything. Now any phrase not directly sourced will be deleted. A quick Google will get you a load of admittedly lightweight sources but show that most of the material is non-controversial description of an aspect of the scene. I would be happy to cut and paste or paraphrase from the Wipipedia (available under the GFDL). Would that be OK? Does the deleter have any constructive suggestions or are they willing to make any constructive edits? --Simon Speed (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wipipedia is not a reliable source (see WP:V). Just reference the article, per WP:V, you claim it's so easy. I don't think it can be referenced, hence the AFD, which didn't produce evidence of more sources beyond the one half-page. If I thought these claims could be referenced to reliable sources, I'd do it. --Rividian (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm at my three-revert limit but you've ignored yours. I think that your actions do not display good faith. Why is Wipipedia not reliable on this subject? It is written by members of the fetish community and moderated. Do other sources disagree? Is the treatment controversial? If so what parts? Are there alternate POVs that need to be covered? Or should they get deleted too? --Simon Speed (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:V says "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". The only real exception is if the content is demonstrably "produced by an established expert on the topic" which doesn't cover Wipipedia... I could create an account and start adding crap the article, presumably. I am just saying we apply what WP:V says... 3RR is not an entitlement, and it really doesn't apply to people directly trying to enforce a core policy. If this article can be verified, start doing it. I'd be thrilled if the content could be attributed to reliable sources... but right now it looks like it can't be. --Rividian (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone asked an admin to take a look. I'm an admin. I think the removed material was essentially accurate. I don't think it should be too hard to source it, and, given the dispute, it should be sourced.

While Wipipedia is doubtless a good source on the topic, and I think Rividian is being a bit of a stickler here, he or she has Wikipedia's rules on his side. Rividian, granting that you are acting in good faith: you might try working on this sourcing yourself instead of just deleting. I know that my own style is usually to delete ostensibly factual material only if I think it is likely to be false: otherwise, I just mark it as uncited and let the reader draw his/her own conclusion.

Likely sources based on a quick Google Books search:

• Bill Henkin & Sybil Holiday, Consensual Sadomasochism: How to Talk About It and How to Do It Safely
• Drew Campbell, The Bride Wore Black Leather...And He Looked Fabulous!: An Etiquette Guide for the Rest of Us

Neither should be hard to find.

Another possibility would be to contact a good librarian. I realize that some libraries won't go near a topic like this, but others certainly will. I believe, for example, that the Seattle Public Library would be perfectly glad to help you research this, and they have online services (a reference librarian will do an online "chat"). Explain that you are researching for Wikipedia. Explain that you can't just hit a random web site and need a "reliable" source.

If that doesn't work, there is an excellent library at Seattle's Center for Sex Positive Culture. Follow up from our article to their home page to their "Contact" page, email the director, explain what you need and ask to be put in touch with the librarian.

Hope that helps. - Jmabel | Talk 16:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all wonderful advice, but the 2 parties here seem more interested in directly violating WP:V to just restore the same old unencyclopedic stuff. The sources might be out there, I sure haven't seen them yet, but instead of violating what WP:V clearly says, these people need to find the sources. --Rividian (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all wonderful advice indeed. I am stuck owning only 1 book on the subject. Perhaps you the opposing party who seem to have no difficulty finding and checking the reference would like to find a few more (as advised) & add verifiable content to the article. --Simon Speed (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Having looked this article over, it seems to meet Wikipedia standards and I see no reason, whatsoever, to delete it. The topic may offend some readers but that is the nature of almost any article on human sexuality.Aimulti (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

BDSM play parties are a legitimate item of discussion. This article provides a good definition and information, and I do not see any reason to delete it.Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is "red" a universal safeword?

I've removed the claim that red is a default safeword recognized in BDSM circles everywhere. Looking at the sources I'm using it is just not true. Brame does not say this in "Come Hither" and neither does the Wipipedia. This is rather surprising if it's standard practice. Assuming others will respond to a safeword when then may not is quite dangerous, so this is not just a non-fact but a dangerous falsehood. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I understand you want to make the article as accurate as possible -- but just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it so. There are many references to it, and it is also a cultural issue. Not finding a reference yourself is not grounds for claiming there are no references. The stoplight safewords red-yellow-green has been used a long long time time. (at least as far back at gay S&M in the forties) A google search of "red safeword" shows 102,000 references, and "green yellow red safeword" 10400 references.

For instance:

S&M 101 - Jay Wiseman: http://books.google.com/books?id=qRCrzBqMSX0C&q=red+safeword&dq=red+safeword&lr=&pgis=1

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~johannab/sexual.interactions.2006/papers/ChrisNoessel-SexualInteractions2006.pdf

Macho Sluts: Erotic Fiction: P Califia, P Califia-Rice - 1988 - Alyson Publishing

Understanding Domestic Violence among Gay and Bisexual Men: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SBCjviUzjB0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA129&dq=red+safeword&ots=dDp72lJTY3&sig=anO4XCK44i9JMNnVyhu_dm4SmcI

"Dungeon safewords are "Safeword" and "Red" http://books.google.com/books?id=hE_AKLEl8TYC&pg=PA101&dq=red+safeword&lr=&sig=vMGCSJo_cwa2xQz4CGI7DfYzAZw

http://books.google.com/books?id=M1fqbvsfMRcC&pg=PA88&dq=red+safeword&lr=&sig=zLysYKVOMO0qtmvFPI7rs3IYdFk

Big Big Love: A Sourcebook on Sex for People of Size and Those who Love Them By Hanne Blank "When in doubt, use a green/yellow/red safeword system..." http://books.google.com/books?id=7BCzE3bTmigC&q=red+safeword&dq=red+safeword&lr=&pgis=1

http://www.satansworkshop.com/pe.htm http://www.bdsm4ever.net/bdsm.html

And of course, my 30 year + experience having used that system since I was a teenager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a universal safeword as much as an easily understood safeword system - green, yellow/orange, red - like the traffic lights are a good example of how safewords are taught and used. It can certainly be incorporated to help readers understand the concepts involved. 71.139.16.2 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a universal safeword at all. Were it a universal safeword all commonly used sources (Brame, Wiseman, the Wipipedia) would say so. A well used system is not the same as a system that you can rely on to be in place without checking. I have reworded the statement. I hope the result is acceptable. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about "universal" -- that was not my choice of words. But, it is very widely used, and Brame, Wiseman and Wipipedia all do reference the green/yellow/red safeword system. I am fine with not calling it universal. Every play party I have been to in the past 20 years has explicitly or implicitly used that system.

Gloria Brame: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/BDSM_-_Safety/id/1295572

Wipipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeword#Green.2C_yellow_and_red

Jay Wiseman: http://books.google.com/books?id=qRCrzBqMSX0C&q=jay+wiseman+safeword&dq=jay+wiseman+safeword&pgis=1 "Players often use the word "yellow" for this purpose"

Also, I'd like to point out that the section where the safeword is mentioned simply in the context of an example of rules that a play party may have -- and not a maxim, or a detailed explanation of [[1]].

Your point (regarding safewords) may be that one cannot assume that a given word is or is not a safeword, that negotiating before-hand should be relied on, and not make assumptions based on posted (or very commonly used) systems. I agree with that! Go ahead and add that as a parenthetical to the play party. However, that doesn't conflict in anyway with the list of sample rules for a play party that is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)