Talk:Sexual roleplay

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Massive Vandalism on this page 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: List of roles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: vindictive editing

message: 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)
thread_title: Gender

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate photo