Talk:Phone sex

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|☺ 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: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia: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The peer review request for this article has been archived as per the first bullet of Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy.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 "Not mature enough to allow you to have this page! Will keep deleting until you remove links from all commercial sites!", 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 Wikipedia: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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 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 Wikipedia: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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robisbor (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 May 2007

More Susan Block spam

The Alexander Graham Bell reference is pointless pseudo history in this article — the entire section (now deleted[1]) 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)

Sources

A bit more well sourced material certainly wouldn't hurt. --Simon Speed 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If I had reliable sources handy, they would have been added by now. I think some US-specific documentation exists in magazine articles (I'm thinking maybe the New York Times mag, not porn), but finding these would be some work. Dunno what books have been written. A Google search on "phone sex history" might be a fun afternoon for someone, but not me. / edgarde 11:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding reliable sources on the current phone sex industry is extremely difficult. I've been working on a first-person phone sex memoir project for a few years now and the best information is rarely from a published or "reputable" citeable source. That said, there is a decent but dated book by Amy Flowers called "The Fantasy Factory," published in 1998. And I know it's of no practical use, but my personal experience and research have been in agreement with the article as it currently stands. --LylaZ 18:20, 15 October 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

Image: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

Raju sarkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 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)