Talk:Sex party (group sex)

Stub
From my limited knowledge of wikipedia so far, I feel this article is strongly in need of a "stub" tag. It's radically incomplete and I think misleading. I will let a more experienced person decide. At the moment this rich subject has only two sentences in the main body, including a perplexing equation of sex party and gang bang.

66.169.82.221 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There should be a disambig page here - Canada has a "Sex Party", as in "Democratic Party" and "Republican Party"

I believe all topics should be kept seperate so anyone looking them up can find the information easy.
 * They aren't registered as an official party, are they? --  Zanimum 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Key Party
Atomaton, I would not say that anything about supposed "key parties" qualify as "commonly known facts" that somehow exempts them from policy of providing reliable sources. The ones you currently provided are better, but I still have reservations about them. I removed the University Daily Kansan cite as it's a student newspaper, not a real journalistic source, and I don't know how the Dave Thompson book can be used here, as it is about "erotic cinema", not about actual practices among couples during the 1970s.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't say what other peoples cultural experience is, but I've known about them for a long time, and it seems to me that most of the people I know are aware of them as well. As for the references, your personal standards for reliable sources are much more conservative than the Wikipedia standards. I'm not personally aware of the journalistic reputation of the University Daily Kansan, but many college newspapers have excellent reputations.  All the sources I placed are in alignment with Wikipedia's reliability and verifiability policies.  You are right that Dave Thompsons book only references the topic superficially at best.  But, it is a cultueral reference confirming the existence of the act, even if it does notgo into detail about it.  Personally I don't care that much about whether the section is in this article or not. I just hate it when someone removes article content just because they haven't heard of something.  There are countless uncited paragraphs in Wikipedia.  We shouldn't gut Wikipedia to the least common denominator fo common knowledge.  In this case, it is fairly well known that swingers have had that kind of party in the past.  They don't do that any more, and probably it happened very few times (probably just a fad) when it was popular.  In that context, it may be accurate to put it in the article, but it is hardly more than trivia.  Atom (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because you've heard of it and know others who have doesn't free you from having cite reliable sources. From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material," and "[a]ny material lacking a reliable source may be removed..." A college newspaper and a pop history book by a non-academic on pornography that doesn't address the subject directly are not reliable sources by any standard. Simply because they refer the subject does not "confirm the existene of the act," as the rest of the intro will show you people often talk about "fairly well known" sexual acts that probably do not exist.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know Wikipedia policies. I did not add this section originally, it was contributed by someone else.  This is a sore area for Wikipedia.  There are numerous, numerous occurences of uncited text in wikipedia.  I dislike the actions of editors whose main role is to find text they haven't heard of, and then remove it, harming an article, and then defend their actions with WP:V.  Yes, I know they are right by policy, but that does not make their actions "good" editing.
 * Cultural references are indeed evidence. Whether they extend to the point of being good references is a different matter.  A college newspaper is a perfectly good source for Wikipedia.  "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  Unless there is some reason to say believe otherwise regarding this particular college newspaper.  Having said that, I also agree that better, more verifiable sources are better, certainly.  A peer reviewed journal would be a much better citation.  In the area of sexology and sexuality, there is little discussion of these kinds of topics in academic journals.  As for sex acts that probably don't exist -- given the wide variation of human sexual behavior - little surprises me anymore.  The "rainbow" parties you allude to are pretty believable, considering I have first hand knowledge of very similar things thirty-five years ago.  Every generation thinks they invented sex, and "re-invents" many of the same things.
 * At any rate, as I said previously, swingers currently don't have things like key-parties, as they tend to be much more selective than that. Key parties were a real thing at one time, but more of a brief fad, like pet rocks.  If this article did not mention it, it would be no great loss.  But, trying to claim that they never existed, and were, perhaps just urban legend because there has been no academic research articles written about it would just be incorrect.  I doubt if we can find peer reviewed articles confirming that there actually were pet rocks either, but many of us know that they did exist, from first hand experience.  Atom (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you're aware that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. You may personally have firsthand knowledge of something, but we can't take you at your word. We have to be able to check out the evidence. Any source should actually be about the given subject, not just refer to it. Passing references in student papers or pop history books do not demonstrate that the parties are real, they merely demonstrate that the (non-expert) authors have heard of it and are passing it on. As the one reintroducing the material, the burden of proof is on you to come up with reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually key parties have all of the hallmarks of a moral panic. Supposedly everyone has heard of them having been common but little verifiable evidence by people who actually attended one. Swinging and opened relationships happen all over the place in some form or another but swingers are usually pretty choosy about who they have sex with. The idea that it's common for groups to get together and pick sexual partners out of a hat is more the stuff of legend. That said I'm sure the select tight knit groups have engaged in such parties simply because of hearing about the legend, but common place, hardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.22.12 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge (Orgia)
The article Orgy is nothing but a glorified disambiguation page. Since its content overlaps entirely with Orgia, Sex party and Group sex, it should be made back into a disambiguation page (as was done in this edit), with all the content merged into those articles. Or, alternatively, orgia and/or sex party should be merged into orgy until they are large enough to make reasonable articles on their own. Zodon (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose involving Orgia in merge. You need to look more closely at the article Orgia, which is about the ancient Greek religious practice, and is based on multiple scholarly sources. It has nothing to do with sex parties, or any sexual practices, except that the participants (like the early Christians and later certain heretical sects) were accused of using their gatherings as an occasion for promiscuity (hence the modern meaning). The note at the top specifically states: This article is about the form of worship in ancient Greek religion. For other uses, see Orgy. A section in Orgia that needs development is the explanation of orgeones, which were state-"licensed" organizations devoted to specific religion practices. None of this technical discussion sheds any light on the contemporary sexual practices of Sex party, Orgy, or Group sex (it seems reasonable to discuss whether those three should be merged). The fact that the English word "orgy" ultimately derives from Greek orgion is simply an etymology to be presented in connection to "Orgy," wherever that material ends up. Orgia is more substantial than a stub, and should not be merged into an article on either "orgy" or "sex parties." The Greek form of the word was used as the article title specifically to distinguish it from English "orgy." Cynwolfe (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * oppose I don't think that went anywhere, so this thread can be considered closed. If the merge below goes thru, as an alternative to a redirect at Orgy to Group Sex there can be a disambig page with the classical and modern usage. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Where are the adults around here?
Seriously, a wikipedia endtry for "Sex Party"? This isn't Urban Dictionary. I think anyone can figure out what a sex party is, should we have entries for "stick" and for "cold drink" too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.229.154 (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a stick but I doubt you'll see an endtry for cold drink. There is a category of group sex articles, a real social phenomenon of sex parties, not limited to so-called swingers and has organization, social impact, etc. Agree though doesn't deserve at this point its own article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge (Orgy, Group sex)

 * support It's as if the arresting of intellectual development at puberty had had an especially comic effect here. It has some distinct content and it's name should map to a section in Group sex, put tags on it and "Orgy". I've redacted the lede at Orgy, put tags on all the articles and directed their talks here as that had already been set at Group sex a couple years ago. I renamed this thread for discussion of that overall action. This is one of those funny things that shows where you are as a species, culture, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)