Talk:Play party (BDSM)

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. &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 [|Safewords].

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)

Since some people don't get the "example of rules from some previous play party", I took the example out altogether. A rewrite gives the concept of rules at a party which I think was the goal of the contributing editor. Interested persons can read the wikipedia article on safewords if they want to know more about that. 75.72.34.245 (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Red" is certainly predominant in North America as a "full-stop" safeword, but hardly universal. There was the earlier reference to the word "yellow", for example; also, other colors are used to signify different messages. Another common "house safeword" used at many parties is ... safeword! Lastly, please note my reference to North America; I'm aware, for example, that "Circus" is a very commonly used house safeword in parts of Europe. Desmond Ravenstone (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in the past of this article someone had made a claim as "RED" being a Universal safeword. I agree with you that it is commonly used in North America, but not Universal. It is part of the red-green-yellow system. Currently this article does not make that claim about safewords. We should introduce it into this article more prominently. (Cited, without "Universal" claim). Atom (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

need for citations
Yes, the article could use more citations. However, removing a section because you disagree, when the material covered is widely known and paracticed is not appropriate. More citations would be nice for that section, and, indeed, for the entire article. It is a stub and needs more work. Like 10,000 other articles in Wikipedia it needs more citations which will come eventually.

The material regarding how in many places it is illegal to charge for what some people may perceive as a "sex party" is very common. One method very frequently used is to charge in advance, so that no money is exchanged at the party itself. Having been to hundreds of play parties, I have seen this practice used many, many times. So, when that fact is removed because a citation is not immediately brought forward I find that annoying and disruptive. Eventually a good citation will be found for that.

Atom (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". People have long doubted sources exist for a lot of this content, yet it keeps getting restored contrary to policy. You need to find sources to add this disputed content. I'm not even sure people are reading the stuff they keep restoring... for example they keep restoring the pure rubbish line "However, wankers are very widely frowned upon." --Rividian (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC) I saw that.  It does look odd, but it is a true observation.  I have been to many, many play parties and people walking around wanking are often asked to leave and/or not invited to future parties.  That is more common, even if disfavored, at public venues such as the Hellfire Club and the Vault in NYC.  Atom (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not based on the personal experiences of random internet users, but reliable sources. Again, see WP:V. --Rividian (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that statement. It would be nice if whomever added that material had cited it.  I did not place those statements in the article based on personal experience, I used my personal experience to judge whether, as a editor, it would be likely that the material would be citable.  If we Editors removed every statement in every article that was not cited, we would have a big problem.  Instead, we remove unlikely material that doe snot match our experience or common sense, that will probably not be cited, and in other cases we ask for, and sometimes hunt down and find citations.  Atom (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am removing material that will probably not be cited... sources have been asked for these claims for years, I have looked for sources... it seems unlikely that sources can be cited. So I'm removing content that I do not think can be sourced... yet it is endlessly restored in contradiction of WP:V. Despite endless accusations, I am not running around deleting all unsourced claims in all articles... merely the unsourced claims in this article that I do not think can be sourced. What is the point of WP:V if I can't remove any claims at all due to lack of sourcing, because someone will always restore them saying "Hey maybe someday someone will find a source". --Rividian (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I make no accusations. Sorry you felt that I was. I was pointing out that editors in general on Wikipedia don't go around removing uncited material that is likely to be true. There have been editors who did that heavily in the past and they received a great deal of criticisms for it. In this case, consider that this is an area of my expertise. As a sexology and sexuality focised editor, I try to go through a wide variety of related articles and improve them by finding citations where I can. If someone were to pop some ridiculous and extremely unlikely material into this, or some other sexuality article, I would probably respond in a similar fashion to your behavior in this case by asking for citations, and then removing the citations when none were eventually provided. So -- I offer no criticism of you. My comment that I know the statements to be true based on experience was not mean't to act as a citation, but to suggest that even though others (such as yourself) may find a particular fact to be odd or unlikely, that indeed I kne it to be true, and therefore, something that the originator, myself, or someone else who comes along could eventually cite.
 * By removing the material that you don't like, you do readers who could gain useful insight into the topic a disfavor.
 * Atom (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again with the baseless accusations and insults... I'm not removing the content because "I don't like it", I never said that, I have been very clear that I'm removing it because I do not think it can be sourced. --Rividian (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When you remove material that is likely true, but not yet sourced, you do readers a disfavor. I make no accusations or insults. Phrase it differently if you want to.  There is some reason you do not favor certain material in the article, and yet, you let other uncited material in this article and other articles go untouched.  I suggested "because you don't like it" to characterize that judgment call.  You can choose your own term.   I assured you that the material is likely to be sourceable because I know it to be true. Is there specific material that you think unlikely to be true?  Let's discuss it.  Maybe I can find a citation.  Atom (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not believe any of it can be cited... as I have said. People including me have looked for sources and cannot find any. You chose to assume bad faith of me, but that's hardly the first time someone has done that with this article. If there are sources for this content... find them. It's what the core policy of WP:V says you must do before restoring the challenged content. --Rividian (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So still, there are no citations. Yes, sometimes editors allow a period where unsourced material is allowed on the assumption that citations will be found, but are you finding these citations? Is it likely they will appear? This is not an argument for including unsourced claims in Wikipedia - statements must be verifiable. I'll leave it there for now, but if there's no indication that sources will be found any time soon, I'll be removing it. Mdwh (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This stuff really can't be sourced, as far as anyone can tell... the argument is that since some people who claim to be in the scene claim it's true, we must keep it in the article forever. It's amazing that such an argument has flown... but it has and continues to be the only thing keeping the stuff in the article. I just don't think Atomaton gets that we're writing an encyclopedia, not compiling the personal experiences and opinions of random internet people. --Rividian (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on your talk page. Of course editing is somewhat subjective. I understand the difficulty in this. I can appreciate your desire for citations when they can be found as I like to have articles well cited also. The information you want to remove from this article is well known to be true. Also, the nature of play party is such that no great research documenting the different kinds of rules that play parties have is likely to emerge soon. This kind of issue, where facts are well know to be true, but they are uninteresting enough that there are no scholarly works done on them exist throughout Wikipedia. Usually only information that is unlikely to be true is challenged, and I haven't heard you say that this was your concern here.

I believe that your editing would be more fruitful if you challanged material that was bogus, or likely to be bogus. If one of your interests and time spent is in removing material that is true or likely to be true only because there is currently no citation, then you will step on many toes. Adding a fact tag is perfectly fine, as people can then work (over a long period of time) to find citations for those things.

In my area, the Sexology area, like any sociologic area, finding citations is often more difficult. Also, consider that on the WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality project, we havd maybe 30 volunteers, many of which, although active, do not spend alot of time particiapting as they have other projects as well. And, in the Sexology and Sexuality are there are probably thousands of articles. I have at least thrre hundred on my watch list. A great deal of time in this area is spent on reverting vandalism. So, tracking down fact tags in thousands of articles and finding citations is not a high priority -- Especially when the information is fairly well known, but not a topic for bookwriting or research.

Atom (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we summarize sources already published. We are not a publisher of original thought. I could write a long, detailed and completely true article about the street I live on. No one could blank content because it was inaccurate. But it would be totally unsourceable, and without living on my street it's unlikely anyone could verify it. Yet you want us to keep this content because you think it's true and we should take your word for it... that just indicates you don't really understand what Wikipedia is about. If you want to do research on some sex subculture and document stuff that's yet to be documented, the place to do that is a blog, not an encyclopedia. --Rividian (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen, I understand where you are coming from. You do what you think is right, I'm not asking you not to.  I've been on Wikipedia long enough that I have seen this happen before, a well meaning and concientious editor went through numerous articles removing all and every paragraph and sentence that was uncited.  This created great controversy, and they were banned, then reinstated, then banned again when he did it again, and then he left Wikipedia because of the drama and energy.  Of course you are right to remove uncited material.  Sometimes in life there is a difference between theory and paractice.  In practice we don't remove material just because it is uncited.  Usually an editor has to belive that the statement is unlikely or not true first. (even though policy is broader than that)

Also, rememember that I did not source the comments in this article. So, don't get on my case for original research. I am just an editor, and I had said that I believed that the comments were likely to be true based on personal experience. The fact that you dispute information that is widely known to be true by anyone in the BDSM communnity shows that you are editing in areas outside of your area of expertise. There are no rules against that, of course, it is merely foolish to do so (as I myself have found out more than one time -- which is why I limit my editing pretty much to sexology and sexuality). I do not mean insult in my comments, I hope the tone does not indicate that. I'm just trying to say that by removing material in many articles that is widely known to be true, but just not yet cited is not a positive thing. For one, it degrades the quality of the article, for two it disrupts the wikipedia community and will stir a hornets nest up. Just one paragraph or two in this unimportant article will have little consequence. But, having had the sexuality articles the subject of attack from other editors with conservative viewpoints in the past (which may or no apply to you) I'm concerned about every article on my watchlist.

As I said, wholesale removal of all uncited material that you don't agree with is disruptive to Wikipedia, there are hundreds of thousands of articles with this kind of material. Given the choice by editors to leave material that is uncited, but likely to be true (and hopefully eventually -- someday) to be cited OR to remove all uncited material, Wikipedia has chosen to leave the material, even if uncited, it offers useful insight into that particular topic.

Now, I have tried to ask you what it was in this article that you found hard to believe, as I could find any number of people to support them (for your personal satisfaction -- not as a valid cite for the article) if taking my own word is not sufficient. I removed the sentence on "wanking being prohibited" to satisfy you once before, as that may be limited to some region only, and it is very difficult to cite. (Although the concept of men walking around masturbating while watching your scene being prohibited is not that far fetched to believe.) So, speaking editor to editor, on this specific article and regarding it quality and content, what are your objections? Let's discuss it, find something that works for the article and move onward. I thought we had done that with the wanker revision, but apaprently not. Let's work together on this. Atom (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection, as I have said in probably every comment I've made here and you never seem to get, is that you want this article to based on stuff that you believe is true, but which we have no way of verifying since there aren't any sources. Just find sources other than your own personal experience... that's all I've ever asked. I don't believe we should provide free webhosting to unencyclopedic content in the interval though. --Rividian (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here are the places you added fact tags:
 * Some charge an admission fee, while laws in some areas may not allow a fee, but may take donations, or payment in advance (by some prior date.)
 * At some parties, penetrative sex may be allowed, while at others full nudity may be banned. Parties have been invaded or harassed by police for alleged violations of these laws.
 * Some types of play may be restricted to certain areas; e.g. wax play can only be done in an area with a clean tarp.

Each of these is pretty widely understood to be true. Do you really believe that they aren't? In some states charging for an entry into a location where sexual intercourse, or even sexual activities occur is defined in the law as operating a bawdy house, or house of prostitution. This is avoided in some places by requiring payment for the party in advance, or requiring a membership. Some places do not charge, they allow donations for entry. (although in some states the exchange of money on site regardles of the wording is sufficient).

In some jurisdictions local laws may prohibit penetrative sex or nudity. In the jurisdiction wher I attend most play parties the former is a violation of law, but not the latter.

Rules limiting wax play to certain locations (that are prepared for messy play) is only common sense.

Could you explain why any of these things seems unlikely to be true?

Atom (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the reason that the many fact tags are removed in this article is because there were so many fact tags that we gravitated to a global Original research tag for the article. One or two fact tags in a large article are fine, but when there get to be more than that, the affected section, or in this case, the whole article is tagged rather than each and every individual item. The fact tags clutter the article and make it difficult to read. Atom (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This could all be solved by removing the unsourcable content. Unsourcable content attracts fact tags, the solution is to remove that content, not to ignore policy because it's inconvenient. --Rividian (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing useful, constructive content doesn't improve the article. Allowing likely factual content, and then eventually finding sources is more constructive, and more importantly, the de facto way most other editors operate.  fact tags not needed (are redunadant and clutter the article) individually if the section, or the article is already marked.  Atom (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do some digging and find cites for this stuff. There's extensive literature on the subject, and most of the material there could be properly sourced. Get busy. --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. There is no doubt that uncited material needs citations.  The issue here is that there is not extensive literature on this topic.  There are a variety of books and articles on BDSM, but little material that gets into the common rules that play parties often have.  It isn't a topic of current sociologic research.  I will see what I can find.  Atom (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is extensive literature. I just found a cite and added it.  Look harder.  You might actually have to read a book. --John Nagle (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good for you! No need to be insulting.  If there is extensive literature on play parties, then feel free to add more ref's.  I've added numerous cites to numerous articles.  This topic is more challenging.  Atom (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The information you want to remove from this article is well known to be true."

Please see WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". This is one of Wikipedia's core policies.

If the information can't be verified, then the information should not be on Wikipedia. As for challenging information being bogus, I do have concerns about the material, so I am not simply making a point. Play parties are often private things that may have a large number of variations depending on the individuals, so it's not clear to me that we can make generalisations such as prohibited activities, or posted rules (and I am someone in the BDSM community btw, I do not consider these things to be "widely known" - they aren't true of the play parties I've been at, for example).

As for a global tag, that tag is inapproprate because there are some references for this article. Individual tags are better, so we know which bits of the article people have requested citations for. Mdwh (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on locating citations. As I have said previously, there are many, many articles with uncited statements in Wikipedia. I cite WP:V myself so I understand the purpose. As a general rule editors only challenge and remove material that is unlikey to be true. This is not in conflict with WP:V, rather it allows time for material that is likely to be true to eventually be cited.

I certainly see your point about play parties varying widely. I am rather suprised that you state that these things are not widely known.


 * Play parties generally have a list of activities that are prohibited.
 * Some charge an admission fee, while laws in some areas may not allow a fee, but may take donations, or payment in advance (by some prior date.)
 * At some parties, penetrative sex may be allowed, while at others full nudity may be banned. Parties have been invaded or harassed by police for alleged violations of these laws.
 * Some types of play may be restricted to certain areas; e.g. wax play can only be done in an area with a clean tarp.

All are things that have been either explicitly written or implicitly assumed at every play party I have been at, or sponsored in the last 20 years -- which has been quite a few. That doesn't make it universal, or applicable to all play parties, and the article doesn't claim that either. I have not been to a play party in England, for example. The section is shuld be rewritten to express that these things are an example of the kinds of rules that can be, or are often found at a play party, rather than implying that this kind of etiquette always applies, which is not the case. Looking back in the history of the article, this material has been added over a long period of time by many people. My assertion that I have seen these kinds of rules at play parties is not indicative that I generated the list. Atom (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A misleading article from the word Go!
Whoever wrote this article is insane. The original meaning of "play party" had nothing to do with bondage, sado-masochism, or kinky sex. To the vast majority of people who ever used the phrase, a play party was simply a get-together where there's lots of highly organized and elaborate singing, dancing, and party games. Indeed, it was popular among Christian fundamentalists who didn't allow any other activity that involved dancing.

Ridiculous, highly misleading article! Ren129.93.65.223 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, see WP:CIVIL, and refrain from the abusive comments. Secondly, if "play party" really has an alternative meaning, then write the article, and we can disambiguate. It's perfectly possible for words to have more than one meaning, and the article makes it clear that it's talking about the usage of a term in the context of BDSM. The idea that the term is "co-opted" is ludicrous, and even if were true, is neither here nor there - that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on a particular topic.


 * Also remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it is not expected that an article should mention every usage of a particular term. On the contrary, articles should focus on a specific topic. Unless you think that BDSM play parties and Christian "highly organised" party games are the same kind of topic, they shouldn't be covered in the same article. Mdwh (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I added an edit to the article with things I knew off the top of my head about play parties are they are used in music. I'm a music teacher, and while I was trying to get some more information about play parties, I stumbled on this article. I am by NO means a good editor for this stuff, as I don't have a good grasp on the formatting, nor do I have a whole lot of good sources. I am hoping that some other music people will find this and help flesh it out so the two areas can be disambiguated. This link describes the play parties I know:    70.190.8.127 (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I note that this article was originally Play party (BDSM) but was moved - we could always move it back to that article, create a new article for the usage in music, and then turn this page into a disambiguation page. Since these are completely different concepts that just happen to share a name, I think having two articles would be best. Mdwh (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Regular play party vs. BDSM play party
For years, play party used to be simply a redirect to play party (BDSM), so it was decided to get rid of the needless disambiguation. But now, an anonymous user has added content about regular play parties that have nothing to do with BDSM. This requires splitting the article into two separate articles: play party (without any BDSM content) and play party (BDSM) (with only BDSM content). The problem is, that the non-BDSM content is far shorter than the BDSM content. J I P | Talk 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now split the article into the two articles mentioned above. J I P  | Talk 11:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Etiquette
This section was unsourced or referred to one particular venue, which is too specialised. I have removed it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I've now turned play party into a disambig between this article as play party (U.S. traditional). I can see why the traditional U.S. play party people are so upset, though. I think people expecting either kind of play party would be quite annoyed to discover they were at the other kind. -- The Anome (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Play party (BDSM). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080605003256/http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/moser3.htm to http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/moser3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525205616/http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=4579&issue=897 to http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=4579&issue=897

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)