View Full Version : Wikipedia entry on swinging
06-06-2006, 06:18 PM
The talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swinging) for the Wikipedia entry on swinging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging) sure is a fun argument to read. I think we should help.
06-06-2006, 11:03 PM
Well, the top part read ok and that's where most would move on. (I didn't read the entire entry...yet.)
What did you think they needed our help with?
06-07-2006, 09:58 AM
That Swinging article and some of the surrounding articles, like the one on gang bangs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangbang), are starting to sprout pretty cool collections of references to movies and books and the like. One example of something to fix is that gang bangs aren't referenced in the "See other" section in the Swinging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging) article like they probably should be. We talk in depth about plenty of things that are only briefly mentioned in some of the articles and I'm going to start recording some of that wisdom over there.
But some things are just wrong. Like look at the entry on group sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_sex). It seems bizarre for it to have a prominent section on bukake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake) without even mentioning swingers, the people who actually run around having group sex all the time in the modern western world.
Oh and I had never heard of the term "lolicon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon)" until I saw the Wikipedia article. But I saw it because it was at the bottom of that group sex article. I can't figure out what kiddie porn has to do with group sex? That isn't a very objective or pertinent reference at all.
Lots of things like that need polishing, I figured there would be plenty of people here with opinions to share. Correcting things over there is just as easy and fun as posting messages over here, try it, it's neato.
06-07-2006, 01:49 PM
I removed the "lolicon" reference from the Group sex article. Made a few other minor edits to some of the other pages. Added references to the cream pie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creampie_%28sexual_act%29) and gang bang entries.
I think I'm going to add a section on what an amazing pain in the ass it is to set up a real live gang bang. Outside of an on-premises club anyway. Need to find some references first. That group sex article really needs some work, I might clean that up and try to steer it away from that bukake slant first.
06-07-2006, 10:00 PM
I am about the most non-PC person around and I don't normally get my panties (the ones that I never wear) in a twist over verbiage but I gotta take issue with the term, "wife-swapping." Ain't nobody gonna SWAP me, last time I checked we all do or don't do as we feel comfy and happy with and with mutual respect. I would think the authors are going to piss off a HELL of a lot of women who go to the article to find out about it. Many people assume that Wikipedia is the definitive resource for information and often go no further in their research, I seriously doubt most people would even read the "talk page."
The term is archaic, condescending and NOT indicative of what the lifestyle is about, from what I have seen on this board. Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? That term just irritates me.
06-07-2006, 10:58 PM
I agree with you Con(*&%$@#),
I don't think I ever used that term in describing the lifestyle to my wife or anyone else. I like the word "share", or "borrow". I also love the term "swing".
Anything that builds up the scenario is good.
06-08-2006, 06:09 AM
"wife-swapping." It was the original term that was used along with the term "key parties". It just reflected the times it was happening in and what they were in reality doing, swapping wives.... ;)
06-08-2006, 10:08 AM
I would think the authors are going to piss off a HELL of a lot of women who go to the article to find out about it. Many people assume that Wikipedia is the definitive resource for information and often go no further in their research, I seriously doubt most people would even read the "talk page."Well right, that's why we should contribute. We're the people who know about these things. There isn't a dividing line between "the authors" and us, we are the authors. Wikipedia becomes definitive through people like us contributing to the articles, and my objection to the current state of a lot of those articles is that they were obviously written by Internet nerds who see swinging through the lens of porn videos. That section in the group sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_sex) article about how people only have group sex in pornography, and not in real life? I mean come on..
The "talk page" for each article is the equivalent of this forum, where people can discuss the entry behind the scenes before making actual changes to the article.
The term is archaic, condescending and NOT indicative of what the lifestyle is about, from what I have seen on this board. Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? That term just irritates me.No I think you're contributing something really useful, and it's true that the term "wife swapping" isn't very common any more. It hasn't been since I got into swinging and I can't imagine ever using that term around swinger friends with a straight face.
I took a look at the "wife swapping" portion of the "Swinging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging)" article to see if I could rework it to properly represent reality, but it looks to me like the current text on the subject is already appropriate:
Swinging is sometimes called wife swapping, but this term is now relatively archaic, due to the misogynistic implications inherent in this phrase. A more common term is simply The Lifestyle, as it is becoming increasingly referred to in contemporary culture.
Somebody, apparently from here, contributed to the discussion on coercion, thanks for that! The entire section on "Objections to the Swinger Lifestyle" seems very similar to Julie's "What are the Risks?" (http://www.swingersboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26176) thread. I'm looking at cleaning the whole section up and including some of that wisdom.
06-08-2006, 10:25 AM
Thanks, I should take my own advice LOL! I read through the talk page and assumed that the description of full swap:
FULL SWAP: Full swap has no real sub-groups and is quite straight forward ~ It is wife-swapping for sex, plain and simple.
was the text used on the main page. I see now that it has been changed. I knew that it had been the original term and that technically that WAS the basic idea back in the 60s, I objected to it being used in a current definition. Historically, it is VERY pertinent as are the other interesting details.
Honestly, I didn't feel comfortable about contributing because I am not "officially" a swapper as of yet. Of course this doesn't stop me from having opinions on it :D The discussion about the editing is almost more interesting than the main page itself! Certainly does give one a better understanding about how diverse the views on the topic are.
06-08-2006, 10:35 AM
Honestly, I didn't feel comfortable about contributing because I am not "officially" a swapper as of yet. Of course this doesn't stop me from having opinions on it.Sometimes the best Wikipedians are the ones who are less passionate and more objective about the contributions that they're making.
For example, I was considering an alteration to the 'moral objections' section that used a page from the Liberated Christians (http://www.libchrist.com/) web site as a reference, but I realized at the last minute that the change that I was about to make was not neutral and objective because the reference page is clear advocacy and I was using it to back up a statement that also would have been seen as advocay by any non-swinger. So I'm going to add it as an "External Link" instead so that readers can come to their own conclusions.
The discussion about the editing is almost more interesting than the main page itself! Certainly does give one a better understanding about how diverse the views on the topic are.I thought so too. It's kind of like reading threads on these forums, except that people here are generally more qualified on the subject matter.
06-08-2006, 10:39 AM
Here's something that needs to be fixed, I think?
What could the Hellfire Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hellfire_Club) possibly have to do with swinging, and why would it be listed in the "See Also" section in the Swinging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging) article?
I had never heard of the club before reading that article, but it was apparently a group of Satan worshippers in 18th century England. The justification for linking to it from the article on swinging was apparently that there have been swing clubs named "Hellfire Club" since then. That's prejudicial to link to a group of Satan worshippers from the swinging article when there is no direct connection.
06-08-2006, 10:46 AM
Okay and what kind of no-sex-having Internet geek included wreaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreaves) in the "See Also" section of the article on swinging (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreaves)?!?
Somebody please help me to save those articles from clueless porn addicts before too many swing-curious couples read them, thinking that they've found something definitive.
06-09-2006, 12:11 AM
No, it says that the Hellfire Club was a parody of the Satan worshippers and loosely based its rituals on those of Satanism. It also says that the club was rumored to be Satanic but was more of the Venus/Bacchus worshipping. It also sounds as though many notable figures of the times were participants. I don't think the reference is completely untoward but I think your point is valid that it could be construed that swinging might have satanic origins. Technically though, Early Christians believed that the Romans were pagans which they saw as evil. Witches cabals could also be seen as a form of swinging as they were supposedly orgiastic worship of the devil. I doubt there is a direct line of evolution between any of these things and if one were to approach it scientifically these other issues would be irrelevant. This does merit some thought but based upon the scope and nature of the Wikipedia, I doubt you would be able to enforce a narrow definition that did not address the mythology. Perhaps, that is what needs to be done, clearly state that any other references are to show how historically this activity is commonplace but there is no true correlation between the orgies of witches or Roman and modern day swinging. It's late and I don't know if I am making sense or not. Let me know:)
06-09-2006, 07:37 AM
I'll see if I can find entries on Roman Bacchanalia parties and the like, and if I can I'll make a separate link section in that entry for it.
It still seems very prejudicial to include that link to me. It seem similar to me slapping links to articles about Mai Lai and Haditha at the bottom of an article about the US military. Except even more prejudicial because the Hellfire Club is even less related to swinging than the connection in that example. Even the modern Hellfire Clubs with that name are not directly descended, and they also apparently are BDSM clubs and not swing clubs.
06-09-2006, 09:57 AM
People have had group sex since sex was around. This is evident in sperm which has various properties to make it harder for 'other' sperm to get to the egg. This would only evolve if there was a reason and the obvious reason is that humans are naturally promiscuous. Its in our genes. Monogamy has its advantages but apparently long term genetic survival is not one of them.
As such there will be ancient types of 'swinging' and extra-marital sex was not just common but expected.
The problem is that these groups, cults, cultures who may have been 'swingers' of a sort have no direct connection to swinging today. Its not like your local swingers club can trace its roots to a roman temple. We do it in the context of our own motives and culture.
The seeds of non-monogamy are inside us, to deny it is to deny our nature. We choose swinging to express it.
06-09-2006, 10:13 AM
I removed the Hellfire Club link from the See Also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging#See_also) section in the article on swinging, and I moved it to the See Also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM#See_also) section in the BDSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM) article, where it's actually pertinent. I totally removed the reference to wreaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreaves) becuase it was just silly. Dropped a note (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swinging#See_Also) into the Talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swinging) page explaining why. Couldn't find an article on Bacchanalias, so if anybody has any fun references then let me know and I'll write one.
... my objection to the current state of a lot of those articles is that they were obviously written by Internet nerds who see swinging through the lens of porn videos.This is hilarous: there is a reference in the See Also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threesomes#See_also) section on threesomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threesomes) to a Star Trek episode. Not as an example of a threesome in popular culture, but as a pertinent reference. The reasoning being that the episode was called Ménage_à_Troi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ménage_à_Troi_%28TNG_episode%29), after the character Troi. OMG, I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw that. Somebody please help me to save these articles from virgin Internet nerds...
06-09-2006, 10:28 AM
This is hilarous: there is a reference in the See Also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threesomes#See_also) section on threesomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threesomes) to a Star Trek episode. Not as an example of a threesome in popular culture, but as a pertinent reference. The reasoning being that the episode was called Ménage_à_Troi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ménage_à_Troi_%28TNG_episode%29), after the character Troi. OMG, I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw that. Somebody please help me to save these articles from virgin Internet nerds...
:lol: Ok, that is ummmmm yea.....
EDIT: Ok I just read that article on wreaves..... :rollseyes
If you find a power rangers link somewhere in there, just surrender to the nerds.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.