Talk:Handkerchief code

Strictly gay

The term "strictly gay code" in the 1970s is misleading, pointless, wrong, and contradictory especially since later in the sentence it says that it's used by bisexuals and gay people. Bisexuals also used the hanky code in the 70s as well I was around then and I remember bisexual men using the hanky code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.47.133 (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Anybody can change Wikipedia, so next time, feel free to change the sentence structure as you see fit. I'll go have a look at it now and see what I can come up with. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to trim unsourced and apparent jokes

Many of the codes in this article look like jokes made up for this page. I propose that all codes without reliable sources are trimmed from the list until someone can provide a credible reference. --Fæ (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the extended table, by and large it's the last bunch that I find questionable. Most of the first 3/4 of the table constitute reasonably common practices in the gay BDSM community, so it's not difficult to imagine that they might have developed hankies to go with them. Nevertheless, as is stated in the text itself, the entries in the second table seem to be an amalgamation of web sources, are most likely not commonly used/known colours, and are not reliably sourced at all. Rather than trimming selectively, which no one can really authoritatively decide on, I'd suggest we remove the entire second table and any related text for the time being. I'm sure there's something more recent than The Leatherman's Handbook II to use as a source, which may list a few more colours/patterns that have come into common use. I'll ask around and see if someone can provide a recommendation for a modern reliable source. – RobinHood70 ^talk 03:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Having now asked a large number of gay BDSMers, the general consensus is that anything more than the older ones are unreliable at best and generally unused or minimally used in real life, and for that reason, anything "authoritative" is probably out of the question. There are numerous websites devoted to the hundreds of wild ideas that everyone and their dog has had since the advent of the Internet, but besides the Leather Man's Handbook II, already mentioned on the article, only one book was mentioned: Leatherboy Handbook by Vincent Andrews, which apparently has a list of 41 hanky codes. All the other recommendations were websites, most or all of which were self-published or otherwise non-authoritative. As such, I would recommend that we remove the entire second table (which appears itself to have come from two different websites) and reduce it to a small blurb that says something to the effect of there being a wide variety of more expansive lists available on the web. – RobinHood70 ^talk 03:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Support the suggestion. I see no harm in going ahead. If anyone has a beloved code to keep in, they should substantiate it with a new source. --Fæ (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

With nobody else having opposed the suggestion, and someone going so far as to Prod the article, as you noticed, I've gone ahead and removed the web-sourced table and made what I think are appropriate changes to the rest of the text. – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Object I STRENUOUSLY AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE the deletion of the longer color list. I have lived in San Francisco, California all my life and have been involved in BDSM since 1973 and I have seen people wearing every single one of the colors on the first 3/4 of the original list over the past 29 years. I have been to everyFolsom Street Fair since the first one in 1984 and people have continued to wear them there. People still wear the colors today on the annual leather march from The Castro to Folsom Street one week before the Folsom Street Fair. As sources, besides the websites, there is also a printed reliable source, the recent 2009 book Leatherboy Handbook by Vincent L. Andrews Las Vegas:2009 Nazca Plains, Corp., that mentions 41 colors congruent with the list. I deleted colors in the last 1/4 of the original list that had dubious colors (as mentioned by RobinHood) that I have never anyone wearing or seen on the color code cards or in printed sources such as the Vincent L. Andrews book. Keraunos (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The various leather stores in San Francisco today as of 2012 still give out the printed color code cards mentioning the colors on the longer list and their meanings and they still sell all the bandana colors on the longer list. Keraunos (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it is true that the colors are worn much less often today, because a lot of gay people today cruise through the Internet instead of going to bars, so they can just state their preferences on the website rather than wear the colors to a bar. However, the even if it were the case that the bandana colors were no longer used at all, the longer list would definitely still be worth preserving if only as a historical artifact. However, as I mentioned people still do wear the bandanas today, but less so than in the 1970s. A sentence could be added simply saying that the colors are less used now because a lot of people cruise over the Internet instead of going to bars. Keraunos (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the extended list should be restored. The code is used by multiple members of the community in Portland ME ~ including some of the ones on the secondary list (I rock a lavender one from time to time). They are usually worn out to the clubs/bars and are most often worn by members of the lesbian/queer community, so the idea that they are primarily used by cruising gay men is an anachronism. My two cents - restore the code!Punkrockgrrl (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If we can limit it to the ones present in the Leatherboy Handbook (which was one of the sources I mentioned above), I have no objections to the restoration. If you have the book, Keraunos, it would be great if you could go over the 41 mentioned there and see if the various notes correspond to things mentioned in the book. If the notes can't be substantiated, they should be removed.

Nobody's saying people don't flag at all any more, just that a lot of the more imaginative colours that were listed were not widespread. On the other hand, what do we consider to be reliable given that the list of colours has changed over time and continues to change? That's why the table was removed originally, because it had no reliable source behind it, just self-published websites like the two you restored. The problem with colour cards and websites is that they tend to simply follow the trends, and can vary from site to site, and store to store. A book tends to have more research behind it and will generally cover a broader area, while excluding those that are more local phenomena. I tend to put a lot more stock in something that's gone through a writer who has hopefully done some research and talked to various people in the international community, then gone through an editor, and has probably had at least a few others at the publisher's review it as well—though this is by no means guaranteed (witness the recent debate over The Leatherman's Protocol Handbook).

I'm fine if we go with just the Leatherboy Handbook list, but if we do, we should remove the two websites as sources and ensure that the information we're presenting is only derived from printed material or any other truly authoritative, reliable sources. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, there are currently 50 entries on the list, so it should either be trimmed to the 41 in the LBH or something more reliable than a handout or website should be found. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was concerned that practices such as "experiences intense sexual pleasure by having their face or eyeball licked by the top" seem so unusual as to be a joke. A quality reliable source would be needed for any such odd sexual practice, or we run the risk of people adding "enjoys watching people eat gherkins" and then spending six months talking about it before anyone is bold enough to delete it as rubbish. --Fæ (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with RobinHood on this one. Anything that is not backed up with a reliable source goes. WP policy is quite clear on that. The websites and cards handed out at shops are clearly not reliable sources. Anything sourced solely to them goes. As for Leatherboy Handbook, I personally wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Granted, it is far superior to the websites and the cards, but I'd like to see some evidence that its authority on this subject matter is widely recognized outside of the BDSM community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the full list? For example, mustard meant size queen. And there were about 7 or 8 different shades of magenta/pink that all looked similar but meant different things. I thought that was interesting. Who was the dipshit who thought it'd be cute to, well lets face it, censor the list? --RThompson82 (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion above. You will find calling everyone that does not agree with you a dipshit and supporters of censorship a poor starting point for establishing a consensus. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

is it possible someone is playing with the direction?

I have little knowledge of the subject except for the first hand experience listed below so consider this real life testimony and adjust as required

late seventies I was a naive overweight kid, i knew ZERO on the subject. I was window shopping at a local mall and the call of nature came upon me. so i walked into one of the three Anchor stores of the mall (J.C Penny's should it have any bearing) and entered their public restroom. (I repeat i was naive concerning the goings on of public toilets in addition to the subject at hand) Upon entry i observed i was alone but still was shy about open urinals so i walked into the handicapped stall and proceeded to urinate when I felt a tug at my pants leg (it was my left pants leg in case it makes a difference) While still urinating I looked down to see an "ugly man" (see full description later) reaching from under stall wall tugging at my leg.... when i turned to look he started pointing to his mouth. again i was still urinating in the toilet, i automatically went into defensive attack mode and started kicking at the intruder and likely saying/yelling "leave me alone" or similar verbal objections. "ugly man" quickly left the restroom and i took another minute to restart my stream and then left (and no, I doubt i washed my hands, i was too upset) no longer in the mood for window shopping i perceded about 200 feet to exit the store and another 400 or 500 feet to the mall exit where the local public bus stop to town. the bus arrived about as soon as i did so i queued up and a "natty man" (desc later) walked up behind me and told me to turn my pocket in. checking, i found my jeans back pocket inside out showing as a distinctive white flag. i turned it back in and "natty man" disappeared (I don't think he boarded the bus although i have no memory for or against)

after i saw The Minnesota Connection (movie based on the book) (may have been a TV movie or a TV airing of a theatrical release) upon seeing the movie was the first encounter with the flag system and i quickly remembered the encounter retold here thus I am sure they both thought my pocket was a flag until my reaction. plus the likely hood that "natty man" knew of my supposedly lone encounter of a couple minutes earlier makes me wonder if they wernt both undercover cops since by rumors that i heard much later, that particular restroom sounds like it is the east sides "meet-up" location

MY POINT HERE IS THAT THE POCKET WAS MY RIGHT POCKET NOT MY LEFT POCKET. thus the aggressive would have been me urinating, (had i known about flagging) making the right side aggressive/top not the left mentioned in the article.

further descriptions of the players: I was a 6 foot fat kid at the time, well over 200 pounds (probably 250) and a youthful, clean-shaven "Baby" face (i always looked younger than my age which is added weight to why i always have a beard now)

"ugly man" had rough stubble as a beard, uncombed hair and dirty clothing... he likely would have been quite handsome, man next door type, had he cleaned up but "ugly" fits his appearance quite handily.

"Natty man" was overdressed even for a businessman with the slightest hint of a "dandy" added to his appearance. think of "Mister French" on TV show family affair but with body type of "Uncle Bill" or even slightly thinner than Uncle Bill. the man might even had a hat at a time when they were rare but not yet reserved for pimps....

I only now connect the two men due to the white pocket liner possibly being thought of as offer for "white rain". Let's face it, the possibility that the two encounters so close to each other being a coincidence is astronomical (i had been "out and about" for hours and supposedly the pocket had also been out just as long yet the incidents took place about five minutes apart, definitely less than ten minutes. Qazwiz (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

List of colors

Are we really still pretending the list only has 10 colors? I remember it being at least 20 colors long, including mustard (size queen) and plaid (into red heads, a reference the British Isles have a higher ratio of them), etc. --RThompson82 (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you're asking if anything has changed since the last time you asked (over four years ago, two sections above this one) the short answer is "no". HalJor (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite!

Any article that makes a number of factual claims and only after several paragraphs inserts a sentence to the effect of "This is not a universal thing and is different depending who you talk to and where you are" needs to be totally rewritten. If nothing else the point that "this is not a universal thing" needs to go at the very front of the article.

Beyond that this article sounds a lot like someone is describing an urban legend as if it were fact.

Imma look into this and if no one else wants to take on the rewrite I'll do that. (I'll probably delete 80% of the material.) Hmoulding (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of the lede do seem to indicate uncited/original research, but the Origin and Examples sections are better and have at least of a couple of reliable sources. I'll take a look later, when I'm not supposed to be working. HalJor (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I removed a fair amount of uncited/original research and rephrased a few sentences. What remains is pretty general and (despite any additional citations) is reasonably true based on the citations that remain. I can't find my copy of the reference for the "Origin" section, or I'd confirm that the entire section comes from that reference. The "Examples" section is based on the citation mentioned there -- I rewrote that section a while back, more or less in its current form, so it should stand (the final sentence speaks to the current state of the code, where there is no consensus among the additional colors and the regionality of any deviations). The only part that could use additional work is second paragraph of the lede. Some of that is probably in the other works cited here -- I just don't have them handy. HalJor (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

THE BIG LIST

Has anyone else seen this? I'm not sure why the expanded version of the list isn't allowed in this article. https://unicornbooty.com/the-new-hanky-code-film-art-comedy/ --RThompson82 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)