Talk:Phone sex/Archive 1

survey
I'm starting this survey today as proposed. It will run for 45 days. It doesn't appear anyone here -- except one voice -- has any objections to the questions or format. As that person continues to suggest things against Wikipedia policy and ignore conflict resolution protocol in favor of conspiracy theories, I'm not sure how to accomodate them other than being hopeful that a demonstration of the concensus will prevail. I'll be announcing the survey on Current surveys so hopefully some outside voices will help.

Please sign your name/IP using three tildes under the position you support, adding only a brief comment (if necessary). If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your name/IP to more than one option. Extended commentary or further discussion should be placed below the break to keep the survey at the top.


 * 1) Examples of Extreme Taboo Subjects: Some parties feel that due to the nature of the extreme taboo subjects often discussed in the industry examples of such subjects should be provided in the most explicit terms possible; others feel more neutral examples are better in keeping with Wikipedia’s NPOV policies.
 * 2) In favor of extreme language example: (sex with children, sex with animals, rape, abuse, etc.)
 * 3) In favor of less extreme language example: (sexual situations with underage characters, animals, non-consent, physical abuse, etc.)
 * 4) * 68.56.232.25
 * 5) * Karlelvis
 * 6)  Examples should be removed from article; “extreme taboo” is descriptive enough on its own.
 * 7) Inclusion of a “Historical Recollections” Section: Some parties would like to include a “Historical Recollections section” to this article where anyone claiming a history of the subject could post their personal testimonials regarding the histories and practices in the industry without the burden of documentation; others feel this is directly in opposition to Wikipedia policy.
 * 8) The Reflection Section should not be allowed.
 * 9) * 68.56.232.25
 * 10) * Karlelvis
 * 11) The Reflection Section should be allowed.
 * 12) External Links – General: Some parties feel that no external links should be allowed that contain any commercial content. Others feel that external links with commercial content is fine (there are many entries on Wikipedia that allow such), so long as it also provides legitimate reference.
 * 13) Allow legitimate reference links to remain, even if they also include commercial content.
 * 14) * 68.56.232.25
 * 15) * Karlelvis
 * 16) Do not allow links to any site that contains commercial content, regardless of reference materials provided there.
 * 17) Do not allow external links at all for this entry.
 * 18) External Links – Specific Examples
 * 19) Allow Link: http://www.sexuality.org/l/workers/phonesex.html
 * 20) * 68.56.232.25
 * 21) * Karlelvis
 * 22) No Not Allow Link: http://www.sexuality.org/l/workers/phonesex.html
 * 23)  External Links – Specific Examples
 * 24) Allow Link: http://phoneslutdiary.com/resources/resources.htm
 * 25) * 68.56.232.25
 * 26) * Karlelvis
 * 27) Do Not Allow Link: http://phoneslutdiary.com/resources/resources.htm
 * 28) External Links – Specific Examples
 * 29) Allow Link: http://www.jackinworld.com/library/articles/phonesex.html
 * 30) * 68.56.232.25
 * 31) * Karlelvis
 * 32) Do Not Allow Link: http://www.jackinworld.com/library/articles/phonesex.html
 * 33) External Links – Specific Examples
 * 34) Allow Link: http://www.janesguide.com/tips/phonesex.html
 * 35) * 68.56.232.25
 * 36) * Karlelvis
 * 37) No Not Allow Link: http://www.janesguide.com/tips/phonesex.html

peer review
Certain persons conducting "surveys" are using proxies and stuffing the ballot box with their own votes in order to include their "personal business advertising" here in the phone sex section.

I propose a survey that if one link to a commercial site is allowed, any other links to commercial sites should also be allowed. One person CANNOT crown themselves "queen" and be the ONLY one allowed to advertise here. Therefore, I propose that any and all commercial services can and should be listed as they all contain relevant content. Otherwise, no commercial services should be listed.

Also, the listing of commercial services need to be in alphabetical order, no one commercial service should be able to bill themselves as the first link.

Either ALL commercial services that want to place their links are accepted here or NO commercial links are accepted. Anything else is BIAS in favor of certain phone sex services.


 * This needs to be moved to village pump and discussed there, not here, and new notices go at the bottom not the top of talk pages. Dunc|&#9786; 20:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed the link in above comment, it wasn't resolving to anything meaningful. Karlelvis

bias
Use of the term "sex with children" is clearly inflammatory and WILL CREATE BIAS IN THE READER, which is obviously not what Wikipedia is here to do. Likewise, the Historical Recollections, whilst interesting, are not appropriate in a Wikipedia entry. A better way to deal with that sub-topic would be to link to an external page with the same content if possible. If that isn't possible, I cast a strong vote for exclusion rather than inclusion.

npov
Pages that commercially advertise MUST be kept off of this page to maintain a NPOV status.

Not sure why this editor continues to argue about "the person who is respected in this industry" but the bottom line here is that "this persons" pages are for her own commercial business and ARE NOT IN ANY WAY NPOV. They contain her biases and they contain commercial advertising. This editor knows quite well what the feeling of the wiki community would be on commercial advertising.

This is NOT the place to promote any one particular person, page or business.

survey
Survey Proposal for Historical Recollections section.

Please cast your vote for the continuance of the Historical Recollections section to be part of the article and published with a NPOV.

The following logical reasons for this section are as follows:

1. The page does not include information regarding the history of phone sex.

2. Due to the nature of this business, there are very slim odds that "documentation" of the history is available (check stubs, business papers, etc.) Documenting the history of phone sex is as stated in 1. important to understanding the subject matter of this page.

3. The Historical Recollections section will be strictly from a NPOV, that is, recollections of practices and business methods without any judgemental comments about those practices. The section also contains a caveat to let readers know that it is on the honor system, the documentation problems, and the effort to keep it in the NPOV format.

removal
No, your removal of MANY is nothing more than a reflection of your own bias. You want YOUR bias to be the rule here. I propose that NO BIAS be the rule, therefore the language will be "many people do not engage in extreme taboo talk and many people do engage in extreme taboo talk. You are not going to marginalize those of us who do not discuss child sex and animals with our callers. "Some" is not neutral language in the context you have presented in the article. Also, "underage characters" is not sufficient here to describe what actually goes on in some extreme taboo calls. Just because you don't want people to know that no taboo ops will talk to men who want to discuss child rape, doesn't mean it shouldn't be here, and "age play" is not the objection ops have to start with.

I've also reverted back to the other edit. The historical recollections are important, and are from a NPOV. There is no other way to present the history other than to set up the honor system for older ops to come here and post what they remember. You don't want this because you have a personal problem with me, not because you want a NPOV.

Survey Proposal
I am proposing that I will post a survey to resolve what cannot be compromised on here in the discussion section. My proposed survey is below. I am leaving it here for at least 7 days for discussion on its format as per Wiki guidelines. On 6/22 if there is no further constructive discussion, I will post the survey.


 * 1) Proposed Survey Questions & Possible Answers:
 * 2) Examples of Extreme Taboo Subjects:
 * 3) Examples Listed As: (sex with children, sex with animals, rape/abuse, etc.)
 * 4) Examples Listed As: (inclusion of sexual situations with underage characters, animals, rape/abuse, etc.)
 * 5) Examples should be removed from article
 * 6) Inclusion of “Reflections” Section:
 * 7) The Reflection Section should be removed from this article.
 * 8) The Reflection Section should stand in this article.
 * 9) External Links
 * 10) The External Links From the 23:43, 3 May 2005 revision should be re-instated and the current FCC link should be kept.
 * 11) The External Links from the 23:43, 3 May 2005 revision should not be re-instated, but the FCC link should be kept.
 * 12) External Links should be removed from this article entirely.
 * 13) I propose that people be allowed to select more than one answer to demonstrate their support for more than one solution over others. For example, someone may prefer that Extreme Taboo Subject Examples be removed entirely, but in the event that they are kept, prefer the neutral language to the more inflammatory language.
 * 14) I propose for this survey to last 45 days. This will give adequate time for editors to register their preferences who many not regularly visit this page and that may not even be aware of the current dispute.

reversion

 * 1) Reversion. I am presenting my reasons for revision in a general voice of address to any contributing editors who may want to read my reasons for revision...I have reverted all of the most recent changes by user 24.205.205.22. My reasons are as follows:
 * 2) Listing “sex with children” or “child rape” as alternatives to “underage characters” is both inaccurate and an attempt to use inflammatory language. There are theoretically limitless situations that do not involve actual sex acts with children, but which would still be considered extreme taboo because they involve sexual situations with minors.  It is the fact that an underage character is present in the fantasy which makes it an extreme taboo and not the acts discussed itself. To use a current events example, Michael Jackson is considered to be committing a taboo act for sleeping in his bed with an underage person even though there’s no proof he’s had sex with one. Also, I feel there is some merit in noting that anything dealing with phone sex is, by default, a fantasy regardless of whether it is discussed in a real or scenario context. If something is not a fantasy, it is a confession, and that’s a completely different can of worms. Using the term “underage character” makes the point more neutral and accurate. I would do the same for animals, but the term “imaginary animals” can hopefully be agreed upon by all to be unnecessary. Also I don’t think anyone is necessarily talking to phone sex operators about snuggling with or scoring some touch with an animal, so the possibilities of taboo situations seems fair to be limited to actual sex in that case. I realize that this point alone may get us elected into lamest wars ever, but I don’t see what else to do since one voice here apparently cannot deal with compromise or effectively understand what NPOV language is. If the description of extreme taboo subjects cannot be compromised on then the examples can always be removed entirely. It is probably a more appropriate debate for the Taboo article discussion page anyway.
 * 3) The concept of a “Historical Recollections” section is completely contrary to Wikipedia’s goals and an attempt by one person to create an entire section where people can present their own views without having to meet Wiki’s preferred standards for documentation. Just because one cannot meet the criteria of presenting documentation doesn’t mean they can sidestep protocol by creating a space where everyone gets to testify their opinions and agendas and “recollections.” If information cannot be properly cited as per Wiki’s preferred policies, agreed to by common consensus, or compromised on by opposing parties then that information is not appropriate for an article. This is listed in Wiki’s own guidelines.
 * 4) I sincerely think that the major communication problem here is that one person doesn’t abide by Wiki policy and doesn’t understand what NPOV means in a Wiki sense. One voice here continues to adhere to their personal definition of what NPOV represents instead of what NPOV is in the generally accepted practice of Wiki. NPOV doesn’t mean everyone gets to impose their own judgments by listing them one by one, it means that the facts themselves are presented without judgment or bias. The perfect example of this is the individual’s supposition that the word “some” is a “marginalizing” adjective when it is, in fact, a neutral adjective. The adjective “many” in contrast can be used to represent an implied majority as that person attempts to do here. As such, they reject the neutral voice because it doesn’t represent the implied majority they are trying to create in their personal version of what NPOV represents. We have already established that we don’t have documented numbers on how many of either side exists, so we should not present one or the other as majority.

There does exist an NPOV compromise between the inappropriate majority bias language and the commonly accepted neutral language. I’ll propose the compromise below with examples.

Example: Many companies provide health benefits, while others do not. Here, the use of “many” quantifying the first listed position implies an unnecessary majority while using merely “others” for the second position implies an unnecessary minority.
 * Many -> Others (Inappropriate Majority Bias)

Exmaple: Some companies provide health benefits, while others do not. This is the accepted standard practice of neutral language. The implication is “at least some do X” and “at least some others do Y.”
 * Some -> Others (Commonly Accepted Neutral Language)

Example: Many companies provide health benefits, while many others do not. This is silly and not general practice, but I will compromise to this if it will get the issue off the table and move us so much as a baby step toward actual compromise.
 * Many -> Many Others: (Proposed Compromise For Balanced Language in this Case).

(Note: The very fact that I’ve had to demonstrate this pretty much means we’re going to be used as examples of lamest edit wars ever)


 * 1) Direct Address Commentary to 24.205.205.22
 * 2) You seem to think that having respect for Wiki protocol and NPOV policy in some way demonstrates shame in those of us who oppose your use of language. It does not. I am not ashamed of my opinions, nor do I think is anyone else here – especially since some of them have signed in with their real user names. But the fact is that we are not arguing on the side of our opinions, we are arguing on the side of neutrality. We may or may not approve of the practices in question, but the fact remains that we have an obligation to preserve NPOV and to present the article with properly documented references. This is Wiki policy and as far as I can tell everyone here represents that except for you. In cases of dispute, the only way for others to make informed decisions is to cite documentation. Documentation is considered to be of such import that the Edit Page specifically states: “Please cite your sources so others can check your work.” Further, Wiki’s own policies state: “Disputed statements for which a credible source has not been provided may be removed from Wikipedia articles.” It recommends that until proper documentation can be found, the disputed issues should be addressed in discussion. While allowances are permitted for common consensus to be included in articles without documentation, we obviously don’t have a common consensus here.
 * 3) I cannot see any evidence in your revision history that shows you’ve attempted to remain neutral or compromise in any way. The only things you’ve relented on are things others have provided documentation for, or agreed to remove just to placate you. Your latest major edit is a direct attempt to insert your version of history into the main article without the burden of documentation. Despite attempts to compromise and multiple people posting against your use of language, you continue to use the most inflammatory language possible and employ subtle modifiers that imply yours is the majority opinion. Your voice is not being inhibited. Your position has been noted in the article. However, your repeated need to have your point of view cast as the “right” or “majority” point of view is under dispute. You are also the only person here using personal attacks. You may want to consider how this will reflect on your own personal neutrality to a Wikipedia authority.
 * 4) You have already requested Page Protection for this article without going through any of the other arbitration steps. Page protection is supposed to be the last resort in a long line of dispute resolution steps. I think it demonstrates a disrespect for Wiki protocol and etiquette to jump right to the most extreme method without bothering to wait for discussion here. You did the same by jumping to placing the article into dispute mode without allowing for at least a few days of debate and possible compromise. Your rush to have everything presented your way and lock out others from contributing is not only a demonstration of bias, but inappropriate Wiki procedure.
 * 5) Neither the operators/owners who engage in taboo topics, nor those who don’t have any “rights” here. This isn’t about anyone getting to present every single opinion of a social issue. That is what message boards and social forums are for. Wiki’s own reference pages state that it is not a soapbox and where soapbox issues get out of hand, they should be removed. Wiki’s goals are to present an encyclopedia-level entry and nothing more. Your continual demand that your position has a “right” to be presented exactly as you want it to is inappropriate. Your position has been noted and compromised on for entry in the main article. The argument could stop there. But your goal here seems to be to want your position not only presented as one option, but to have it presented with as biased language as you can get away with. As far as I can tell, I’m only one of a few editors objecting to your language.
 * 6) I’m glad you brought up the external links issue as it is the first thing you did according to your user history. The addition of the links you removed took place on 23:43, 3 May 2005. Your removal took place on 01:11, 5 Jun 2005. Your characterization of “couple of months” is indicative of your habit to use the most inflammatory language that represents your cause. I actually have no problem with any of the links that were presented in the May 2005 major edit and I will include the possibility of re-inserting them as part of the survey I intend to propose. Based on your original (not revised) posting here in the discussion area and your removal of links as your primary act I think demonstrates a behavior of personal grudge on your part. I think your goal was to remove the links because they included a documented authority that happens to promote the extreme taboo subjects that seem to be your driving force of contention. The specific link in question that you mention led directly to a reference section of a site that contains no advertising on reference pages as far as I can see. Also, a brief web search demonstrates that this person is considered an authority and respected voice in the industry. It is, however, a personal page and I can see the grounds for discussion about it (although three editors came and went during the brief month it appeared with no concern about the external links). I don’t care whether it returns or stays gone, but it’s worth getting more opinions about than just yours and mine. It’s also interesting that although you site that link as your objection, all of them have been removed. Also you should be aware that commercial sites that provide documentation and/or information are all over Wiki and not necessarily grounds for immediate removal. A link to Apple.com, for example might be appropriate for an article about computers despite the fact that it is a commercial site with items/services for sale. The rule of thumb is to gauge whether the link in question meets some criteria for being a reliable source and whether it references relevant material. No link is automatically disqualified because it is a commercial site anymore than a site is automatically approved because it is non-commercial.
 * 7) The very idea that you think a “historical reflections” section is a good idea is a prime example that you don’t understand Wiki’s goals, policies, and guidelines or the concept of NPOV. NPOV means as concise and non-judgmental as possible, not as many possible variations/opinions on topics that can be harvested. I strongly and respectfully suggest you take the time to review the resource pages they’ve taken pains to make accessible to all. You’re doing your side of the debate a disservice. There are many people here who might agree with you in a moral sense, but they cannot back you on the use of inflammatory language and/or improper protocol.

neutral
Look, I'm sorry if you feel ashamed that you have to make your living talking about kids and animals with phone sex customers that you have to go to such great lengths to inhibit the voices of those of us who do not, and never have.

I have tried to remain neutral on the article page while also asserting the rights of those operators who do not participate in this kind of talk with customers, that we have a right to be represented here FAIRLY and in a NPOV way.

It's very funny, but I didn't see you here screeching about NPOV when Doxy's personal commercial business link sat here on the article for a couple of months. Why is that? And yes, personal links leading to commercial sites will be removed from here. This is no place for personal advertising.

I've changed your wording here:

Many independent phone sex operators and companies ban discussion of extreme taboo subjects (sex with children, sex with animals, rape/abuse, etc. ) on their lines, generally citing ethical or legal concerns.

You wrote "some" that is your bias non-NPOV showing! There are MANY operators who do not do child and animal calls and there are MANY operators who do. YOU ARE NOT going to marginalize us with "some."

I have also removed "underage characters" from the list, and replaced it with "sex with children" because the truth is that the calls we object to IS NOT "age playing roleplay" (which is understood from the outset that 2 or more consenting adults are playing "roles") but calls from men who want to talk about having sex with/raping children. I personally have no problem with age play roleplay, I don't even know if that is "taboo" or not because it's pretty common for couples to costume and play with each other and do "daddy's girl" or "baby" roleplaying. This is much different than a customer who calls up and wants to discuss "fantasies" about raping children. But hey, if it's legal free speech and you want to pride yourself on talking to pedos, have a ball! lol. But be aware there are MANY of us who do not discuss topics with callers which are not about consenting adults.

As for "proof" of my 20 years in this business, well, you won't have "proof" from anyone unless they can show you check stubs or business paperwork from 20 years ago. And I think you know the odds of someone having that to show and that your purpose here, rather than to have fair representation of your side, is rather to re-write history and suppress history. No one will ever have the "proof" you claim that you need.

Wouldn't it be easier for me just to say, "I object to pedo and animal calls and do not engage in that, and there are many of us who do not engage in that and we are here for fair representation and leave it at that?" Why do I need to make up a tale about 20 years ago, when I first started in this business to get my point across about not doing the pedo and animal calls?

I motion to include an additional section on the article page for historical recollection. I'm not as skeptical of this as you are because I have no financial stake in being 100% right, I only know what my own experience was as an op for several services 20 years ago and don't discount the fact that maybe others had different experiences. The historical recollection section would be NPOV, simply a section where ops from the late 70s and 80s could post their recollection of how they remember the phone sex business from back then. I'm interested in hearing everyone's experiences, hell, maybe there was a service that took pedo and animal calls back then, I sure can't speak for the entire population of phone sex workers from the 70s and 80s. I worked for several services and that was strictly monitored and forbidden to discuss with callers at every service I ever worked for, as well as, 20 years ago, we didn't even know the meaning of the word "chargeback" either. Pay was also much higher, at my services we earned $150 an hour or more for talk time.

opinion
You are one person's opinion. No matter how many times you portray your testimony as a fact it just doesn't make it so from a critical standpoint. We have no more proof that you've worked in the industry for 20 years than we do for anyone else here. Unless you are an editor with an established profile and history on Wiki, or a published authority on the subject, your word counts just as much as everyone else's -- no more, no less. The need for documentation isn't some flight of fancy or unreasonable demand -- it's the only way to resolve a dispute and a fundamental requirement for an objective Wiki entry. In any encyclopedia if there isn't documentation, the information doesn't get in. Controversial factors can be noted when they have import (as they are here) but they should be stated without editorial comment or bias. That is not some arbitrary demand, but the policy here on Wiki. There are other forums on the internet for speculation, personal accounts and moral debate. This is not one of them.

It doesn't take a social scientist to write a book on a subject to make it proper documentation. If you consider yourself an authority then find a reporter at a respected reporting or publishing organization and ask them to research and write an article based on reliable sources and interviews. Then you can use it as reference. You want us to accept you as a reliable source based on nothing but your word when you yourself removed a link to one of the industry’s rare resource sites citing personal bias and disputing the person's "expert" opinion. You refute the testimony of others, but want us to take everything you say as proof. Surely you can see the double standard represented by this. Likewise, your personal experience does not necessarily provide a broad scope of the industry. There is no way you worked for or had access to all, or even a majority of phone sex services.

Putting the article in dispute mode is fine, but given your inflammatory language here, your repeated disregard for NPOV, your rejection and lack of reputable documentation, and your unwillingness to compromise, an editor is far more likely to rule against you. You'd have been better off attempting to arbitrate and compromise here with those of us attempting to address you and affect compromise, but I leave that up to whatever Wiki authority eventually gets around to this article.

You obviously have ethical problems with people who discuss theoretical fantasies that involve extreme taboo subjects. That's fine. The fact that some people have such ethical concerns are noted and the fact that other people do not is also noted. Your crusade to drive your personal opinions into the entry will continue to be edited by those of us who respect Wiki's NPOV policies and are unconvinced of either side’s “proof” without proper documentation.

Moreover, citing “child rape, animal rape” is redundant and it gives the impression that all extreme taboo focuses on some kind of rape, which isn’t accurate. A person who has a moral problem with a fantasy about raping a schoolgirl will (or should) have just as much objection to a fantasy about consensual sex with a schoolgirl. I’ve listed underage characters, sex with animals, and rape as the three main examples of extreme taboo. There is no need to mix and match them just to get the most inflammatory effect. If this compromise cannot stand, then I suggest the examples be removed entirely as well.

I don’t have a problem with your personal views, but I do have a problem with your continued rejection of neutral voice.

fair
I'm happy with your most of your edits, I think they are fair.

However, I am not pleased with the fact that you seem to think you need a "link" of some sort to tell you if what I have posted in regards to the business methods in phone sex during the early and mid eighties, until the early 90s is "right." The fact of the matter is, this is phone sex, not astrophysics. There is nothing historical written about the business in detail from that period. All you have are those of us who worked in phone sex for 20 years or longer to tell you what the business practices were back then. And if some social "scientist" decides to write a book on it, all he or she will have are the people who worked back in the 80s and late 70s to gain information from.

Child and animal sex talk was NOT allowed and customers who asked for that were banned from any service I worked for in the 1980s. I worked for services in a large urban east coast area and in a smaller midwestern area. There's nothing being "disputed" about that except that the no taboo people would like to rewrite history inaccurately because they want so badly for their practice of talking about child rape and animal rape to be accepted as the normal practice as it always was, and this simply is not the case. I am putting this article in "dispute mode" since I feel history needs to be reported as accurately as possible and since you feel that you need a link to a history of phone sex book or something to tell you about the past... and this probably isn't going to happen with phone sex. All you will ever have are people who worked the services back then who can tell you what they remember. I will post again, what I remember, and put the article in "dispute mode."

As for the "no taboo" yes, "taboo" means a lot of stuff. It can mean crossdressing. It can mean foot fetish. But usually what it signals is that the service provides pedo and animal talk. It's a code word for pedos and animal rapers to call. When you go to work for a "no taboo" company you are expected to take calls from men who want to discuss raping 2 year olds, raping animals until they are dead, etc and so on. This needs to be published here in the article because it is a fact.

agenda

 * 1) Wikipedia is not a place where anyone gets to push an agenda. The point is to provide NPOV encyclopedia-level information and when information cannot be documented, it is best left out. It isn’t about everyone getting a say. It’s about what can be reasonably proved. If something can’t be agreed on the answer isn’t to include two opposing undocumented views, but to remove both until one can be documented over the other, if ever. In reading this article over, the historical handling of taboo subjects is unnecessary to make the point that some services discuss extreme taboos and others don’t. Hopefully, this most recent edit employs neutral enough language for both sides.
 * 2) The historical prevalence of call centers as opposed to work-from-home call forwarding companies as the earliest phone sex systems also seems to be a matter of some debate. I am not able to locate any definitive information one way or the other. As such, I removed it. Anyone can come here and claim to be an expert for either side, but with no documentation and every element obviously encountering such controversy, it’s clear less is more.
 * 3) The FCC and FTC have had jurisdiction over communications in the US since the Communications Act of 1934. While the original intent was to address radio and public broadcasting, there are investigations of telephone fraud that date back to as far as the 1960s (link to FTC annual reports: http://www.ftc.gov/os/annualreports/index.htm). 1996 was the year that the major overhaul of the Communications Act took place, but mainstream telephone companies had been answerable to the FCC/FTC for some time, and so would phone sex companies. As to exactly what types of speech restrictions were in place, there doesn’t appear to be any net information. All the pre-1990s documentation provided focuses on fraud and not subject matter. For that reason, it is reasonable to remove the references to legal/illegal historical claims.
 * 4) Laws that attempt to curtail the subject matter of conversation between two consenting adults (or even two consenting minors) are being deemed unconstitutional more and more by state supreme courts. The most recent ruling in April of 2005 by the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a 40 year old statute that had only been employed 5 times (link: http://www.legalreader.com/archives/002497.html).  Prior to that, in 1997, the “Communications Decency Act” was struck down in Reno v. ACLU. If the US Supreme Court and Congress can’t agree on what is and isn’t ethical in such matters, then I think it’s reasonable to say that a Wikipedia article shouldn’t try.
 * 5) It is also unclear which of these topics (if any) are specifically illegal for discussion in the UK. As, has been previously mentioned, many UK companies advertise no-taboos just like the US lines. Until such time as documentation can be cited to prove legality in the UK or any other country, this information shouldn’t be included, either.
 * 6) The word “taboo” DOES NOT only apply to illegal activities (pedophilia, rape, etc). The word itself applies to several fantasies and fetishes that are legal including cross-dressing, infantilism, etc. Perhaps that is one reason for the violent nature of the debate here. I have added the word “extreme” in hopes to placate the situation where it applies.

taboo
"Prior to the mid-1990s, taboo topics that would be considered illegal if practiced in real life (pedophilia, animal abuse, rape) were not a part of the accepted business practice. A customer could expect to be banned from using a service if he attempted to chat about these topics. Even today, many phone sex operators and companies adhere to an ethical standard regarding this and do not indulge callers in topics which involve the discussion of children or animals. Today, these topics are still illegal in some countries and controversial in others, and phone sex operators and companies have differing restrictions on content."

I have changed my last sentence to your sentence, and I feel that this is a fair statement. You've stated that "taboo" is legal in the UK, yet you don't define the "taboo" every UK op I know personally has said that their companies restrict pedo and animal callers.

The rest of my post stands. We do not take pedo and animal calls due to ethical reasons. That doesn't imply anything other than OUR reasons for not taking these calls, which deserve ACCURATE and EQUAL representation here. There is nothing that is not NPOV about that. However, you keep removing OUR business practice and the reason behind it and that is defintely BIASED.

You no taboo people are going too far here, not allowing us to be represented, and I'm not going to stand for it. Whatsa matter? You ashamed that you talk to pedos and animal rapers on the phone? You act so damn proud of it everywhere else on the net. Now, notice, I haven't stated any of my biases about this anywhere but here in the discussion room, and I won't state my biases in the article page or do what you keep doing to us, removing relevant information that represents BOTH no taboo people and those of us who will not do these types of calls for ethical reasons.

You are redundant, and I am going to be staying here to make sure that OUR SIDE is accurately represented.

ethics
The change you made said nothing about the FTC or FCC so I'm not sure why you're still screaming about it. If you feel it's important, though, please provide a link to some other document than the one you've cited; that one is all about billing matters, not at all about content.

The phrase "ethical standard" is certainly not NPOV -- it pretty much directly says that people who make the other decision are unethical -- and without that the whole sentence is redundant: the previous paragraph already notes that some people choose to have such restrictions. How is "Today, these topics are still illegal in some countries and controversial in others, and phone sex operators and companies have differing restrictions on content" either non-NPOV or insufficient?

There is ongoing controversy about the pre mid-90s business landscape and the UK laws, and simply re-iterating your claims more loudly doesn't address them. There are certainly UK phone sex operators advertising taboo services, as googling for "uk taboo phone sex" will quickly show.

governance
The FCC governs all 900 lines and due to that ruling in 1996, operators of 900 lines MAY NOT discussed sexually explicit topics with callers, in the same way that the FCC governs tv and radio broadcasts. This does not and has never applied to 800 credit card phone sex lines where any topic may be discussed (here in the USA).

I have also restored my original post from your personal bias to remove it. It is most certainly from a NPOV, while you removing it is your bias.

"Prior to the mid-1990s, taboo topics that would be considered illegal if practiced in real life (pedophilia, animal abuse, rape) were not a part of the accepted business practice. A customer could expect to be banned from using a service if he attempted to chat about these topics. Even today, many phone sex operators and companies adhere to an ethical standard regarding this and do not indulge callers in topics which involve the discussion of children or animals. In the UK and some other countries, these topics are specifically illegal to discuss with callers"

This is a fact. Prior to the mid 1990s there was no such thing as phone sex companies servicing people who wanted to talk about children and animals, it was NOT done. This "no taboo" stuff did not come until later in the 90s, probably due to such prolific competition.

There are many operators and companies today that still do not participate in child and animal talk on their lines, for ethical reasons. This is a statement of fact, not bias. I am an operator with my own business and I do not participate in child and animal talk. I have made no judgemental statement here, I have simply stated the fact that there are still those of us in the business who do NOT participate in child or animal talk with callers, AND WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED HERE FACTUALLY JUST AS MUCH AS THE NO TABOO PEOPLE. I will continue to restore OUR RIGHT to be represented here as equally and factually as those who are involved in no taboo services.

It is also a fact that in the UK, children and animals MAY NOT be discussed on phone porn lines. I have neither posted my agreement or disagreement with this, simply the facts. Ask any phone op from the UK or contact a UK company, they cannot do child and animal talk on their lines.

legality
I removed specific claims of legality; unless and until someone can point to something definitive, I think it's better not to say anything. The FTC document pointed to below discusses fraud, not content. The "ethical standard" phrase isn't NPOV, so I removed it. -- jtl


 * http://www.ftc.gov/be/v960013.htm

Please keep innacurate info of of this page. FCC did not govern any 900 line prior to the late 90s and has never governed any 800 or call center. I have placed the fcc link in the links section for future reference.

defense
Wikipedia is NOT the place for "taboo" phone sex companies to defend their practices, it is the place for factual reporting. The "taboo" people have tried to link to their personal phone sex pages and have also tried to write volumes of crap to defend what they do. This is not the place for it. If you want to debate, that's what the "discussion" is for, not the entry page. "Taboo" (child and animal sex calls) have already been mentioned on the entry page as a current practice with some people in the industry. THAT IS ENOUGH. Trying to re write history is a different issue altogether. Child and animal calls were definitely NOT allowed at any service in the 80s and didn't rear it's ugly head until about the mid nineties, when a lot of services started allowing this due to competition that evolved. None of this had ANYTHING to do with the FCC. The FCC did not begin to regulate 900 lines until recently and 800 lines or call centers HAVE NEVER been regulated by the FCC. Next person trying to re write history or push their personal agenda on the main page or advertise their services, Wikipedia has already been notified of a problem over here.

incorrect
"Prior to the 1990s, such taboo topics were not commonplace in the industry, (although they have been addressed in the arts and social studies since the dawn of written history). This is generally attributed to the fact that call centers and 900 numbers had to answer to FCC regulations which limited the language and subject matter phone sex operators could employ during calls. By default those who utilized services were also informed what could and could not be discussed."

This is absolutely INCORRECT and I have revised it back to the original statement it was posted as. Whoever wrote this obviously never worked in phone sex before the mid 90s. The FCC had no control over 900 or call centers back then. PHONE SEX BUSINESSES WERE SELF POLICING. Owners simply did not allow talk of children and animals like a lot of services cater to pedos today. And this statement about "addressed in arts and social studies" has absolutely NOTHING to do with phone sex.

There are still many people in this business today, with a conscience, who will not discuss kids and animals with the callers.

call center
"Although early for-profit phone sex services were comprised of a call center where phone sex performers worked in somewhat standard office settings"

This is incorrect. Yes there were early services in the 80s that were operated from offices but many of the earliest phone sex services where operated from home via credit card machines (imprinters) and call forwarding to various girls on shift. I have corrected this in the text of the page.

advertising
Personal Business Advertising has been removed because business advertising for phone sex lines does not belong here even under the guise of "resources". If one phone sex service or op gets to advertise here like an "expert" and put up their links, then so do the rest of us.

tethering
wtf has toothing (in relation to bt devices) got 2 do with phonesex? at least, the link is all wrong.

Comment
The original talk page is archived here, it was such a mess that it unsalvageable. You can try to make sense of it by looking through the history of the original talk page. Users are reminded that they ought to log in, sign their names with four tildes ( ~ ), and try to structure their comments with paragraph indentations. Dunc|&#9786; 11:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC
First, both of you need to get accounts and learn how to sign, because otherwise it's impossible to see who's saying what.

Second, stop reverting each other - where's that going to get you? Nowhere, except a ban if you do it often enough!

Finally, discuss your edits here. Make reference to our core content policies: Neutral point of view, Cite sources, and Verifiability. Dan100 (Talk) 07:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Archiving of Peer Review request
The peer review request for this article has been archived as per the first bullet of Peer review/Request removal policy. Unfortunately Peer Review is not equipped to deal with content disputes. --Allen3 talk 11:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Start Over
This conversation, near as I can tell, had turned into a tiny war; basically, one user with a personal agenda against the community. I'd like to suggest, since user Dunc has archived the whole thing, that everyone involved start over -- first researching Wiki policies, and then working toward consensus.

For what it's worth, most of users in this conversation seemed to be doing just that, but it bears repeating for those who don't take time to learn and understand, what Wiki is and what Wiki is not. Karlelvis 19:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The removal of all links to businesses is essential. The Board or whoever needs to make sure that no ponographic links are created. Also, that folks not use this resource to enrich themselves. It's fun to follow the links from Dick Cheney to phone sex you never know where you'll go on Wiki. --verytall 19:41, 4 Jul 2005

Verytall, the problem with the logic of 'removing all links to businesses' is that businesses very, very often contain useful and objective information. Take a look at technical sites Apple.com, Microsoft.com, RedHat.com. All businesses, yet all sources of technical information - take a look at Wiki's page on MacOS X for an example.

So sites cannot, by policy, simply be ruled out because they may contain some commercial content. Content needs to be evaluated for relevance.

Now, the 'pornographic links' question is different. In this context (phone sex as a business), by definition, sexuality/eroticism are on topic and relevant. Any site, commercial or not, may have explicit sexual content. As an example, if we look at Wiki's page on The Kama Sutra, we'll find links to explicit words, pictures, etc.

So we can't in any way state that 'no pornographic links should be created' (I'm using 'pornography' as synonymous in this context with 'erotic' - we could debate the difference but this isn't the place for it) because on-topic, relevant and informative web sites may very well contain explicit sexual content.

Again, the bottom line is, links need to be evaluated for validity as an informational resource; not simply dis-allowed on policy for being 'commercial' or 'pornographic'.

--Karl Elvis 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

Damage control
Beginning in December of '04, I contributed many substantial edits to the phone sex article. In addition to those credited to my username, I'm also responsible for the edits attributed to 69.133.64.7 and 209.148.113.104. I was very disappointed to see the article devolve as a result of the edit war, which in turn seemed to begin when someone posted a large edit that was apparently based on original research (a patent violation of Wikipedia policy).

The article still contains a great deal of anecdotalism, speculative extrapolation, and other counterproductive vestiges of the edit war. I would like to see it develop into something objective and actually worthy of an encyclopedia, and I welcome the assistance of objective individuals with a sensitivity to the needs of comparative studies.

Given that, as of this writing, the archived Talk page simply reads ''&quot;Not mature enough to allow you to have this page! Will keep deleting until you remove links from all commercial sites!&quot;'', it seems the vandalism and vindictiveness continues. Would an admin please lock the archive after reverting the destruction? All I can say is that it would be truly unfortunate if this type of behavior ultimately resulted in a page lock on the article itself. Ringbang 01:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This is all related to search engine criteria !!!! the more link you have the better you are

phone sex
Is there a book about sex on the phone as therapy or plesure?
 * yes, here is one of the few articles i've found on phone sex as therapy and as pleasure which helped me to understand many of my own sexual issues, as well as my interest in phone sex:


 * http://www.drsusanblock.com/blog/article140.html

spam on this page
Recently a user named WildSusan has been spamming this article with phone numbers. Can't this user be banned or something?

Of course. See Vandalism for the steps. Bustter 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please revert spam instead of editing
Reversion makes it easier to identify abuse. Also, please include an edit summary. rv spam link is usually sufficient. –edgarde 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

fone-me
Someone keeps linking to a commercial site, which I keep removing because I can't access the site at all. The font is so enormous at the bottom of the page that each letter nearly fills my screen, and I can't even manage to get access to the site. Does it do this for everyone else? --Xyzzyplugh 18:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate links
Let's keep all such discussion under this header, ok?

We've got an anonymous user, 75.16.53.223, replacing his advertising-afiliate "topsites" link every time it's removed. I placed a warning on the appropriate user page, if it keeps up he needs blocking. Bustter 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think blocking one IP address will do it. The majority of spam inserts are coming from IP addresses with one-time edit histories. –edgarde 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Under "As a business", I removed the final paragraph as it was an advertisement cloaked as "history" with a link to phonesex.com -- Glevey (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

request for semi-protection
I believe this page would benefit from requiring login, and have requested semi-protection, which would disallow edits from anonymous users. –edgarde 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Declined. From Requests_for_page_protection:

"Your request for semiprotection for phone sex was declined, because there is not enough activity in that page to require semiprotection (which, by our Semiprotection Policy is a last resort). I've put that page on my watchlist, though, and I suggest that you do too. Thanks! -- edgarde 21:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)"

Alexander Graham Bell
I have made a minor change to the article. I have removed Alexander Graham Bell's credit of creating the telephone due to the likelihood of Antonio Meucci creating the instrument prior to Bell's patent filing. -- Robisbor (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 May 2007

More Susan Block spam
The Alexander Graham Bell reference is pointless pseudo history in this article &mdash; the entire section (now deleted) was unsourced speculation inserted to link Block's site.

There actually is a recent history of commercial phone sex that would be worth including in this article, and Susan Block is as non-notable a player as practically any phone sex provider that could be mentioned. / edgarde 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Images removed, again
I have removed the images (Image:CandlestickTelephones.jpg and Image:TelephoneHelloNellie.jpg) from this article twice now because they are not connected to it. Here's what the first image is described as:

"Man and woman using telephones, c. 1910 -- Scanned from a period postcard. Reverse says "Printed in Saxony." No notice of publisher, date, or any copyright. Indistinct postmark appears to be 1911."

Caption: ''My word! You do tickle me.''

The second:

"Man using telephone -- Scanned from a (cheaply printed) postcard, c. 1905-1915; no notice of publisher, date, or any copyright."

Caption: Hello Nellie, anything on for to night? [sic]

It's patently obvious that any attempt to imply that they have anything to do with phone sex is original research at best and outright fantasy at worst. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   09:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What's your interpretation of 'you do tickle me' then? Arlo James Barnes 15:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Flux (nude telephone call).jpg
What is the rational for including this image, other than having an attractive nude woman on the page? Based on the caption it would appear that it is intended to serve as an illustration of what someone may think of while engaging in phone sex with an unknown party, but it seems to me that the caption as it appears would actually apply better if the image was of someone who most people would see as less attractive. Either way, as much as I hate to argue against pictures of attractive naked women, I don't think it really adds to the article and probably takes away from it's credibility. 64.252.124.196 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the whole point of phone sex is that it is NOT visual, so having an image at all is probably a waste of time. Diesel Phantom (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not like this is something that is easily illustrated (unless we had a photo of a call center); this image doesn't appear to add anything to the article. --Golbez (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Try to remember that Phone sex is not solely about commercially provided services; people also partake within a personal relationship. Also, as I understand it, commercial service providers don't actually use call centers either, they normally sub-contracted to individuals who work from home.  And isn't the cliche: "So, what are you wearing?"  "Nothing!"? Bigesian (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason this image was added back to the page? Wasn't it removed with some consensus for the last six weeks based on the arguments in this section? Is there a particular reason that User:Atomaton didn't discuss this before putting it back on the page? Is there a particular reason that all of User:Atomaton's edits are sex related, or why a good number of his recent edits seem to be oriented towards posting nude .jpgs and obscene .oggs at the tops of various sex related articles without discussing the images' use on those articles' talk pages? It strikes me as an SPA whose sole purpose is voyeurism or exhibitionism as opposed to objective documentation. - Diesel Phantom (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Many editors have particular focus areas and edit within their areas of experience. As an active member of the WikiProject Sexology and sexuality we monitor and watch numerous sexology related articles. Recent edits that you talk about were to articles where a template for Masturbation had been added to a number of articles, but the editor who had placed it had placed it wrong so that it pushed the lede image for each article down. Naturally the lede image for the article has priority over a template for a category for which the topic is within. Moving the image back to the lede was necessary. Also, you will note that my edits to the Masturbation article rearranged the images so that ones associated with a given section actually were placed with the section, and included removal of an image, not addition of an image. In sexuality articles there are more frequent occurrences of vandalism than with articles in other categories, including blanking of images because people feel that a lede image should be censored.

It should be no surprise that sexology and sexuality articles, such as ejaculation, naturism, pregnancy, and breast have images that involve nudity. If you could point me to any recent edit (or any edit in my history for that matter) where I have added an obscene .ogg image, or an obscene image of any kind to an article, I would be very surprised. Perhaps I have added a sexually explicit image to an article where it is directly on topic on that article, as a good lede image is preferred for all articles if on topic.

If you have criticisms of my editing, I would welcome hearing from you directly in email or on my talk page, rather than you criticizing or attacking because my area of expertise is Sexology and Sexuality. A side area of interest is participation in the WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship project as well. So, yes a frequent area of discussion for me is the removal of images because of wp:Idontlikeit, or discussion of wp:notcensored. Which, by the way, you do realize, right, that Wikipedia is not censored? Nudity is not obscenity and nudity is frequent and normal within everyday life for all people. Just because pornography exists and pornography usually involves nudity does not mean that something involving nudity is defacto pornography. Like many editors within the sexology and sexuality project, or with expertise within sexuality I believe that the more people see sexuality as just another normal part of being human, rather than as something pornographic, shameful or abnormal, the better we all will be.

If you look at my userboxes, I am sure you could criticize any number of other random aspects, such as my edits as a feminist, or as a Buddhist. When you say things like you have, such as "It strikes me as an SPA whose sole purpose is voyeurism or exhibitionism as opposed to objective documentation." it is nothing more than an attack, and is completely inappropriate. Atom (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The words I used are "without discussing". Your recent history at the time was entirely sex articles, and your barn-stars and tendency (as demonstrated here) to act without first discussing suggest Ownership on sex articles and suggested an SPA.  The words you used on my talk page were "You should not project your personal issues with shame or nudity onto others.", which actually is a violation of NPA - Diesel Phantom (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We discussed this on my talk page, but I will discuss part of it again here, since you have -- for others benefit.
 * I am a participant in the Sexology and sexuality Wiki project. My purpose in mentioning that was to answer your question as to why my edits seemed to focus on Sexology and sexuality.  Most of my 7,000+ edits are in that area.  You feel that participation within ones area of expertise is wp:SPA.  I differ with that assessment.  I feel that I am more effective in an area I am an expert in, than say, I would be in the area of sports, since I know absolutely nothing about that area.    I don't see any general pattern in your total of 18 edits.  We in the Sexology and Sexuality Wikiproject don't feel a sense of ownership really.  We are quite active because articles in that category get more than their fair share of vandalism and censorship.  Many vandalism reversion edits does not imply ownership.
 * I don't see how my barn-stars could be viewed in a negative fashion. I don't think they have a barnstar for editing without discussing first.  If they did, then I would not be high on the list to win that one.  Please feel free to comment on my talk page if I edit in a way that steps on your toes.  I prefer to get along with other people.
 * The words on your talk page were regarding is not a violation of WPA, as that policy is about users attacking other users. My words were not attacking in nature.  Mayne people have shame issues with nudity, and I don't consider that to be derogatory.  My point was that if you happened to be one of those people, that trying to influence others to feel that way was not appropriate.  It was not intended to be a slam, but more like defining a boundary.
 * Generally an article without a lede image can be improved by using an image to make the article more visually interesting.  Especially when the image evokes the topic well.  I agree that the image that had been used in this article was marginal at best.  It did make one think of the topic, but in some cases, like pregnancy a good lede image can really work.  At that particular time I was going through all of the articles that are listed on the Masturbation template (shown in the right in this article) and fixing it.  The person who had put in the template had inadvertently placed it first, pushing the lede image out of the article.  I repaired that, and in a few articles there was no image.  This article was one of those.  I replaced the image that had been on the article in the past.  My thought was that a marginal image added some visual flair in this case, even if an ideal image was not available.  I am not sure what would be ideal for this article -- a 65 year old women in a rocking chair talking on the phone?  In this case there was apparently a recent discussion on the topic of the image yet again in the article.  I missed that in my quick review of the talk pages.  My apology for stepping on your toes.  When the image was removed -- it stayed that way.  We are all apparently okay with that.  So, lets move on.  Atom (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

file:phonesex.svg
This image is awful and I'm going to remove it. Somebody produced it and added it to the article where it met with much hostility from various editors. I moved it to the Commons and svged it, trying to be positive and also because we have so few images on the subject. But the thing is so badly drawn that it can barely function as a basic illustration and I think it undermines the encyclopedic status of this article. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Raju sarkar
-- special:contribs/115.69.159.213 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A "secret" conversaton?
Color me crazy, but it doesn't have to be secret. I've overheard it in public all the time. 24.117.9.135 (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)