Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 161.97.199.59 (talk) at 05:02, 22 September 2017 (→Organization of article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WHAT?!!!!!

Why would you have a picture like this on an article were anyone could visit? It seems to me that the picture in this article shows a little too much skin. Some child under the age of 16 could go on the article if he wanted to. 12.73.120.203 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you're writing from, but in London you can see more skin than that whenever the weather gets warm enough. --Taxwoman 09:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia is not censored and children are not harmed by sexual images when provided within an academic context, and dont you remember being a kid, whats the first word you looked up in the dictionary "sex" "bitch" anf "fuck" i bet, in junior high whatd you look up in your biology book "breasts" "penis" "sex" kids can find sex anywhere they want especially the internet and if they want to get off there are much more exiting sites to choose from than an encyclopedia just type in "sex" "blowjob" or "fucking" on google im sure your children haveQrc2006 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Type the word "bikini" into the search engine and you'll find far more skin. Sounds to me like you're more opposed to the actual wearing of rubber than the amount of skin exposed. Novatom 18:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This page might benefit from being further wikified and partitioned into sections. Fsecret 19:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My strategy would be more like moving large chunks of text out of the article and into the talk page because they are probably OR. Lotusduck 20:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

what the hell

i searched rubberman and got redirected here. i thought rubberman was a superhero, and was expecting that, though instead came to this page. i jut found it surprising lol, expecting a superhero, instead finding a fetish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briefranch (talk • contribs) 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Try Plasticman. BMK (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

24 hours

The editor(s) so interested in keeping this original research article have 24 hours to produce a single reliable source. That is all I want. After that it gets merged back into the "Garment Fetishism" article. NeoFreak 20:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not threaten to violate WP:Point.--Taxwoman 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make a point, I'm giving the chance for reliable sources to be found in order to verify this article. I'd just revert again, as is my right within policy, but I don't want to break 3RR for any reason except the most obvious and belligerent of vandalism. NeoFreak 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Posibly if NeoFreak would be good enough to source his "policy compliant" article adequately, the references could be used elsewhere. Or does he think that most of his article should be deleted? --Holdenhurst 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article should be deleted, yes. I haven't done so because the fetishes are clearly real even though their prior articles were not properly attibuted. The mention and brief desciption in an umbrella article was, what I thought to be, a decent compromise until the old articles could be sourced. NeoFreak 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me make one thing clear; personally, I don't really care about this article one way or the other. The only reason it's on my watchlist is because a vandal led me here. Furthermore I have no basis for offering any sources on it; I will leave that to others. My only reason for intervening was that there was an edit war going on, due to the fact that you'd decided to remove the article without discussion. As I pointed out here and here, there's a procedure for getting pages removed if you don't think they should be there. It doesn't matter if you're right about the article or not; blanking or redirecting without discussion is not acceptable, especially when it results in an edit war. I'm not sure if a "24 hour or else" is exactly civilised either, but thank you for showing a semblance of being prepared to discuss the issue. Maybe some of the other editors of this article would care to do the same. --Stephen Burnett 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time waiting and waiting and waiting for people to add a single source to their particular fetish's article. If you want add material and you want it to stay then you needs to attribute it. That's not my rule, that's wikipedia's rule, one that people often seem to think doesn't apply to "their" article. If and when a source is found the article can be put right back without any loss of content. Deletions are a different matter and for teh aformentioned reason not the same as a redirect. NeoFreak 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was asked by a participant in this article to take a look at it, and related articles under similar dispute.

There is right on both sides. Articles containing OR do need their contributors to seriously research and ensure that reasonable cites are provided. That's a priority for any article, and if cites aren't accessible or given then usually the content must be considered suspect, even if it's "common knowledge" in the field. If it is common knowledge then reliable or credible sources should be easy to locate, given some work. It's less easy in sexual topics, but even so for this, I'd expect reasonably authoritative type sources to be achievable.

That said, if sources are not provided, then one has to make a decision. Yes under policy, it can be deleted, but Misplaced Pages works best when collaborative, and that's not the most satisfactory answer. It might be better to ask, is there any information in this article which its authors do not feel could easily be substantiated by citations? Can they fix those, and then begin make some kind of evident progress to citing what remains. That might be best long term, since uncited articles and statements are likely to come under pressure as time passes. certainly 24 hours seems a little abrupt. A week or 10 days might be fair though; what can't be cirted in that time by good research is likely to be a problem, and I know from experience that at least one contributor here has good knowledge and access to relevant websites where such views might be sourced.

I'm not sure that delete and redirect is appropriate., though. If the subject can be made encyclopedic then thats the better solution. FT2 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything. I want these articles to be sourced. 24 hours is not unreasonable. These articles have been unsourced since they were created and nobody ever bothered to add any real refs or citations. As soon as some sources are found it takes a total of 4 mouse clicks to restore the articles to their previous form. Nothing is being lost here, this is just a case of an editors that feels that policy doesn't apply to her and as seems to believe that she somehow owns these articles. NeoFreak 18:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A bald statement that editors have 24 hours (your deadline, not consensus) to produce cites otherwise you will merge it (and remove the article as an independent article) is tantamount to a statement of intent to delete, really. I'm thinking, a week to ten days is reasonable; the article doesn't contain huge amounts of information or "dense" volumes of claims, so sourcing should be as above, readily possible. I've given how I see it. FT2 23:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your honest opinion. The problem is this article has gone unsourced for 4 and a half years. Years. It's been tagged as unreferenced for almost 6 months. The interested editors have shown zero interest in finding any reliable sources in that time. I'm not trying to delete the article, as I've already said as soon as refs are found the article can be restored with no pains at all. Consensus is not needed to enforce policy, that's why its policy. I don't want to be totally unilateral in my redirect though, you and others have shown alot of resistence to the immediate merge. I'll seek a third opinion and go from there. NeoFreak 23:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

It sounds to me like plenty of time has been given for sourcing to be provided, not just "24 hours". Sourcing is a requirement, not a nicety. Like NPOV, it's not something to be done before a Featured Article nomination or that's just nice when someone can get to it, it's required from the very first edit that creates an article. If this article cannot be sourced (as appears to be the case, since adding one single source would end the controversy), it needs merging or deleting. Seraphimblade 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'd like to keep this up in 3O for just a litte longer to get a greater exposure before making any merges (unless you do it yourself). NeoFreak 00:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has been delisted from the 3O page as per SOP. I'm remerging the page. NeoFreak 00:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The article claims that Catwoman wears PVC in Batman Returns; this is incorrect. The costiume is latex and was made by English fetish clothing specialist, Paul Barrett-Brown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.3.123 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC) I am very pleased to see that the threats further up this discussion has turned out, itslef, to be un-pursued. However, I am now very unhappy about the article itself. In the life-cycle thus far of this page, the links have been thoroughly superceded: there's no coverage of the very long-standing sites, forums, resources and indeed manufacturers - and I hear a good deal from people directly involved in the live, present-day community to the effect that a ruthless rejection policy of any changes to the entry is in effect: so it becomes progressively less and less relevant. Worse still, examining the lead picture in the article, looking in particular at the fit of the seams and the shape of the lower arms and the collar - and the use of a metal zip - I do not believe that this is in fact a latex garment. Metal zips catalyse perishing and liquefaction in rubber.

The catsuit is latex, identifiable by the typical glued seams, for example near the depticted lady's shiny stomach area. The boots are plastic, PVC in all likelyhood. Metals like nickel and brass tend to stain latex garments with light colors, but metal zippers in dark rubberwear with thicknesses > 0.2 mm are not a serious problem. --79.250.236.253 (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The connection with PVC is irrelevant; it may interest someone who wants to write an umbrella paraphilia article, but as many rubberists point out (when they have the freedom of speech to do so), there is no ipso-facto connection between latex fetish and the other themes such as bondage (the picture with handcuffs) or other materials. Another duty missed by Misplaced Pages's policy facing this article is the growth in a recent trend in active counterfeiting of latex clothing, most commonly by factories in China: those interested in rubber fetishism are finding that they are being sent poorly-made copies constructed from sheet and adhesive that is not safe for contact with humans.

Lastly, the continual demand for "sources" is extremely difficult to satisfy when it comes to subcultures in general, and sexual subcultures in general: What seems very plain is that the editors who look at this entry are enforcing far higher standards than apply to pages covering Super Mario Brothers. This might seem like a trivial complaint, except for the simple truth that a lack of plain speaking information on sexual subculture matters causes real suffering, real exploitation, and real confusion.

I would like to suggest that this article is re-purposed to address the term and the material it purports to describe, and the requirement for academic classification of "philias" is satisfied by an eqully properly targeted article about terms and categories. The current mixture of purposes is unsatisfactory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.3.123 (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fetish in clear plastic?

I see nothing for clear plastic. Or is that another article? I am thinking of clear plastic clothing and clear plastic raincoats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.129.90 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to add material for clear plastic fetishism

Folks: I have a fetish in clear plastic clothing. I would like to discuss it here, but I am unclear whether to put my story here on this article or the one on clothing fetishism. I am making the same inquiry on the talk page for that as well. Or shall I create a separate article for clear plastic fetishism without trying to fit it in either here or in clothing fetish.

I have a fetish that involves wearing crystal clear plastic raincoats in the rain (with clothes on underneath; not naked). I also like to make and wear clear plastic outer clothing with fiber optics and lights sewn in them and wear them out on the town in the evening. If you are in Bellingham, Washington, you can see me. You can also see pictures of myself wearing my clear plastic on clearplastic.com here on the internet. Any suggestions? Thanks Allyn (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

About the quality of this article

Hi everyone, I'm creating the catalan version of this article (and also from the stuff in the Italian, French and Spanish version) and I'm really dissapointed about the quality of it. I think it has a lack of objectivity and it's poor of contents. It could be better.--Ignasipuig (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I must agree! Being a rubberist myself there are many ways this article could be improved: 1)remove the overlap with PVC and set up a dedicated article about rubber; 2)stress the sensual aspect of fetishism more, away from SM-imagenary; 3)stress in how many different ways rubberists can live their love for rubber - no two are the same, really; 4)stress the positive aspects of rubber fetishism. Overall, a redo of the article is in order I think! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaucuko Amanto (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, let's do a propaganda article for the wonders of rubber fetishism. If you've got WP:reliable sources for how great rubber and PVC fetishism is, by all means trot them out and let's see how "neutral" and "unbiased" they are. BMK (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to "Rubber and PVC fetishism"

I've moved this article to Rubber and PVC fetishism: not all fetishized rubber clothing is unvulcanized latex: materials such as neoprene rubber or mackintosh material are also the subject of this fetish. -- The Anome (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Organization of article

The section "latex-look-alike materials" I think has good information but is perhaps mislabeled. This article is about both rubber and pvc fetishism, and I think the organization of it feels a little disjointed. 161.97.199.59 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles