Talk:Sexual roleplay

Cleanup

I don't see any reason for the tag. Sure, it doesn't cite sources and it's a stub, but it's allready tagged for those two. Does anyone object to removal?Martijn Hoekstra 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive Vandalism on this page

This page seems to be under attack by the internet forum, SomethingAwful. So, you have been warned. MrMacMan ^Talk 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How are these additions any worse than the sexual fantasies that were already listed? --66.44.10.146 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

no it isn;t

How is anything that was added, (minus a few), not a valid sexual fantasy and any more or less subjective then the currently "accepted" ones?

None of the current fetishes apply to me and yet the time travelling fetish applied to me. Why must I be persecuted? Are my sexual needs not "normal"? Why are they not worthy of being catalogued on Wikipedia?

why cant i edit this page? i was going to revert the edit that removed kiwi fruit

Please unlcok thjis page i would like to add more jokes

where else can a wizard go to spread the word of magical sexual roleplaying you guys are fascists

I think the "massive vandalism" is one of my favorite wikipedia pages. Also, some explanation on kiwi fruits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.1 (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Travolta

John Travolta is rumored to play a game called "sexy stewardess" with his trophy. Maybe we could include that fact under Sexual Roleplaying in Popular Culture?

What is wrong with Centurion(male) / Lonely Senator's wife(female)?

It is a perfectly fine roleplay scenario, I don't understand what you people have against it. Could someone explain why all the rest of these belong on the list, but this one doesn't? --Dans1120 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of roles

I've removed them because it's essentially an indiscriminate list and is well-established with the sentences "Nearly any role could become the base material for an erotic experience, and there is no limit to what objects an individual could consider erotic. Many of the most common sexual roleplays involve a power differential."Wafulz 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, these lists can help give examples but they are so arbitrary and bitterly fought over that they are a bane to Wikipedia. --Dans1120 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

vindictive editing

All interested parties are free to read the original entry on the HISTORY page. I wish to formally compalin about the vindictive editing of Administrator Wafulz. This is going beyond a joke. Hope this entry suits the kind of editor whose personal space consists of a giant sheep.

STEALTH RANGER 08:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Article badly needs expansion. I had added 3 different sources, i fail to understand all of them are not reliable sources. Im not inserting some hoax here. Kindly help format it in encyclopedic way, instead of removing it blindly. Thanks. C.columbus (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The list isn't necessary and is just a massive vandalism _target (in fact, most of it was was vandalism anyway). The sources weren't particularly good either- citing them is like citing Dear Abby or Cosmo. If you're going to create a section on the most common roleplay subjects, you should be citing peer-reviewed material or other sources grounded in expertise, because that will ensure accuracy. This is what I did for Sexual fantasy#Common fantasies. The rest of your addition was vague and general, and the source dealt with cybersex, not roleplay. This article is a common _target for malicious edits, so the best way to stop them is to set the bar high and use the best sources. The problem is it's very difficult to find reliable sources that aren't porn or a "how-to."-Wafulz (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So a prose form like fantasy section instead of a list would be encyclopedic and non-how-to. Its not good to set high standards when the article is too short. Thanks. C.columbus (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not the list as much as the sourcing. I don't think reliable sourcing on the most common roles exist. Standards should always be high regardless of article size- no information is better than incorrect, misleading, or bad information.-Wafulz (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a list referenced to a reliable source. It doesn't seem perfect but Dr. Brame is the expert and we should just leave it as it is. I have also added a well reported UK news story (with a source). --Simon Speed (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Simonxag.. Could u provide one more source so that it is cross-verified? C.columbus (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender

Some of the activities listed such as 'Uniform Fetish' imply that certain genders only play certain roles. I think it should be re-worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.135.93.135 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate photo

The photo listed in the BDSM section is inappropriate for an open Internet forum as the males genitalia is clearly visible. Don’t need Wikipedia getting in trouble for age inappropriate images. Coffeegirlct (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and the image is entirely appropriate for an article called "Sexual roleplay". There is an entire policy that governs this here: WP:CENSOR. Although I thank you for bringing your concern up as discussion rather than presumptive removal of the image outright. Curved Space (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not even gonna lie that pic is kinda tuff

Bros got that suit on An apple pie made from scratch (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

could really do with a history section

It feels needed GeorgeWL 1990 (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)