User:WLU/You should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia

You may think that Wikipedia is the best thing since sliced bread. You may also believe that bare feet are incredibly tasty (like a fine mustard) or attractive (like a frilly toothpick in a club sandwich). You may really, really like other people watching you have sex or do other sexual things. Given these assumptions, you may decide to put all these things together into a single, extremely compelling (for you) whole, thus spreading your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich.

This entry is an attempt to convince you that you should not spread your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich.

Introduction
Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, editable by just about anyone with an internet connection, readable to, and read by, millions if not billions of people on a daily basis. That means it's incredibly accessible, and incredibly popular, both with the general public and a certain, slightly more exclusive audience. In particular, there are certain individuals who have certain predilections for having others watch themselves while engaging in sexualized activities. Since Wikipedia is an international, high-traffic website that gets tons of attention, it seems to be an ideal venue for exhibitionists to have themselves a bit of fun via a text-based communication medium.

I am totally fine with your fetish
Fetishes are normally fine (at least with me; check with your local law enforcement just in case) as long as it takes place between consenting adults or at minimum, consenting peers. Human sexuality is a wonderful, interesting, and above all, compelling thing and I'm hardly going to argue that your rubbing your genitals/face/mucous membranes/bare feet against your own or someone else's genitals/face/mucous membranes/bare feet is inherently wrong or unhealthy (note the lack of reference to coprophilia and particularly coprophagia – that will indeed, over the long term, almost certainly result in the need for a doctor's services. But still, so long as I don't have to see it, smell it, or possibly sit on a jury because of it, who am I to judge? ).  That you've come to accept yourself as a proud holder of an alternative sexuality which provides you with more pleasure than any vanilla heterosexual will ever know makes me want to shake your hand to congratulate you.

But!
Sexuality is something that should take place between consenting adults or peers; there should be a choice, hopefully before anything slippery gets involved, on whether to participate.

And,
Wikipedia is not censored, so there is no point at which someone can find out that they are about to get hit in the face with a Freudian sandwich and decide not to get involved. There are no popup windows that lead to an edited, fetish-free version of Wikipedia.

Therefore...
By editing Wikipedia one-handed to satisfy a sexual desire to be 'watched' while flogging the dolphin, bumping uglies or petting the bunny and her groundhog friend, they are effectively forcing me, and everyone else reading their not-so-thoughtfully edited articles on Wikipedia, to become an unwilling participant in whatever tickles their somatosensory cortex just lateral to their medial longitudinal fissure.

And this is bad because?
This is bad because I (and probably most people) don't necessarily want to be involved in your sex life, and I'm guessing you don't want to be involved in mine. I mean really, does the thought of years of the missionary position excite you? Because rubbing my feet against someone else's genitals/face/mucous membranes/bare feet, or vice-versa, does not do much for me. In my case, I think it would eventually lead to chafing and probably boredom. This is the general application of the Golden Rule – I don't want to be forced into your sex life, and you don't want to be forced into mine.

In summary, and to expand
So, please don't spread your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich. It's not polite, and most people frankly don't want to be forced into voyeurism. In addition:


 * Spurious wikilinks detract from Wikipedia; it is jarring to the reader, makes the page less accurate, and even if accurate the links probably do not refer to notable information.
 * Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. No-one is as interested in another's fetish as they are; even if they are, I doubt this is documented in reliable sources.
 * Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. By inserting unsourced statements about nude, helpless women wandering around barefoot or Sports bras on a whole lot of really unnecessary pages, such as Singaporean girl's schools, you are giving undue weight to your belief of the importance of that fact.
 * Though Consensus does not appear to reference the ideas contained in this essay, I'm assuming a straw poll would bear me out. Most editors would probably prefer you do not spread your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich.

Of course, these are all reasons you may use for spreading your fetish across Wikipedia like mustard on a delicious, delicious ham sandwich, were you legitimately attempting to base your contributions on policy. But if you've been warned about this before, particularly if you are constantly using multiple sock barefoot puppets to evade a ban, I'm guessing this is wasted on you because you already know it's wrong and have in fact been sanctioned for attempting to do so anyway.

I don't use mainspace pages to poop in your mouth, restrict your sexual flavour to vanilla, or make you repeatedly read my humorous contributions. Further, I don't force you to scour England for yellow-legged gulls, pay for an Inverted Jenny or read fallacious solutions to problems of epistemology which have bedevilled humans for far more than 2000 years. Please don't add links about sports bra-wearing barefooters unless it's an article about beach volleyball.