Talk:Latex

Tree sap

I happened across this website. Anyone know the truth? --Pascal666 06:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be moved to a Natural latex article, to separate out the material that is made from it, and the synthetic latex

Could someone who knows also consider the similarity to Tree sap

Agreed. Ie: Maple syrup.

~ender 2006-11-19 13:17:PM MST

India rubber

What is India rubber? It doesn't have an entry and could do with one. Cutler 08:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Technical only - Latex as CLOTHING

This article has NOTHING about the mention of latex as a clothing item, which is pretty bloody ridiculous. Needs a lot of improvement.
--Chaosfeary 17:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate Picture

Looks like there's an edit war going on right now. Someone inserted a picture of a model in the shower with exposed breasts and black plastic (latex, we assume) gloves. Several people have edited it out, and several have edited it back in. The picture is unnecessary and does not add to the article and thus is inappropriate (both due to social moors and lack of content). If you insist on adding a picture, why not find a picture of a latex tree being tapped, or the sap being processed into latex? That would be educational. If you love the current picture so much, go add it to the BSDM clothing page or whatnot where it is more appropriate. -65.184.55.76 (65.184.55.76|contribs)

I am pretty sure this IP is the same person as the other two.

• Special:Contributions/208.176.61.219 (talk) (I left a comment)
• Special:Contributions/65.184.55.76 (talk) (I and another user left a comment here)
• Special:Contributions/69.216.131.22 (talk)

Anyway "social moors"/"inappropriate" is not applicable. Please read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.

This picture is just as educational, it's not educational in the context you would personally like. --Mistress Selina Kyle 04:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, as soon as a more educational one is found, we'll of course be using that, right?  ;) There's very little latex to be seen in the picture anyway. Mostly skin. I have no problems with sexy images but it's more of a "woman with fake boobs" picture than a "woman in latex" picture. -Kasreyn 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not the same person, and I'd log in if I could remember my user name and password. Its not important.

While looking through the history I found that a picture like I suggested above was already present in the article but edited out. I am going to revert the page to that point in its history. If you sincerely desire to change it back, discuss it here first and tell me why you think that the female model image is more appropriate than an image of a tree being tapped for its sap.

BTW, MSK, You've already violated the 3 reversions rule.

For any newcomers, the picture of the latex tree has been on the page for at least two months, until NSmith24 decided to edit it out today for an image of a female (boob fetish?). -65.184.55.76

I found the page with the female image added in again, and I have removed it. I'm not a frequent editor of articles here, is there an appropriate authority to contact regarding abusive editing? NSmith seems to have a history of this according to his talk page, and this needs to be put to a stop.199.248.185.2 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Latex as clothing is an important application of the product. That being said, the image in question could comfortably be replaced with another one. If anyone would like to propose an alternative image, bearing in mind that this one is of pretty good quality, I'd like to see it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah just a bit too much silicon (lol) ;) But better than no picture at all - I will have a look around. --Mistress Selina Kyle 05:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be censored, however we can excersize a bit of restraint when it comes to pictures that do not add to the article at all. I'm sure there are plenty of pictures out there with people wearing full latex body suits. The current picture that keeps being edited in shows very little latex and gives latex a representation that it's merely used for sexual purposes. --DaiTengu 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have actually said on this page already I'm trying to get hold of a non-copyrighted/free to use on WP image to use in the article at the moment... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a request in to someone asking for permission to use a picture, It'd be nice if we could hold off on the editing war until the picture is changed. Even you have to admit that the current picture is a very poor representation of latex.--DaiTengu 03:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed the myth-busters picture. Yes, we wouldn't offend anyone, yes, we are at least sure it was latex, yes it demonstrates latex as clothing. But we can't stretch fair use that far, if you'll pardon the pun. The irony is that the other one has a dubious copyright claim that is probably false, but this one we know we can't use. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put in a request to mythbusters that they release the photo for use on Wikipedia. Themindset 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that, having had, erm, experience of latex wear, that model is not wearing latex, she's only wearing rubber. Dan100 (Talk) 23:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That is, the model under a stream of water isn't wearing latex. The Mythbusters guys are. Dan100 (Talk) 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Yeah, I'm a total jackbooted fascist when it comes to what I desire in external links. Of course, Wikipedia:External links is guideline not policy so talking is good. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with them, what bit are you referring to?

They're very relevant links, and now the article has NO links.... :( --Mistress Selina Kyle 06:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to thier subject matter, so it's not about relevence for me. However, several of them are commercial, and unless we have a really compelling reason to violate a guideline, we shouldn't.
There is also the question of proportional representation. We now have for external links for only one aspect of latex, and none for all the others.
I'd have prefered a bit more talking to a full revert. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry, habit I guess. not used to editors being so polite ;)

people round here so far tend to use politeness as an excuse to hide behind but revert and shout at others whenever they feel like it ~mutters~ >:| Um, anyway...

• Proportional: If you can find websites about the technical process of extracting latex go ahead... I have had a look around and can't find anything ... :/ Presumably it's all done by hand somewhere.. In the meantime best to have links for the aspect we *do* know about, I think..
• Mm, some parts of the site are commercial, but the actual pages linked to themselves are not commercial, I made sure of that - They have links on them to separate commercial bits, but nowhere on the linked page it is it actually offering to sell things. *Shrug*

I dunno, looking forward to your reply. it really is nice actually to have a real debate rather than people just saying "I POSTED ON THE TALK PAGE NOW IM GOING TO CARRY ON REVERTING YOU MERCILESSLY".. people keep using that as an excuse ive found -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle 07:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In the spirit of this debate, I'd like to express the fact that Latex is a sex-neutral substance, and that over-representing its sexual uses is inappropriate. Many many substances are used in some form of sex act, are going to fill up articles like Satin, Leather, Rope, etc. with all kinds of links regarding their sexual/fashion applications? That would seem quite un-encyclopedic. Perhaps a sexwiki would be more appropriate for that kind of pervasively sexually-obsessed content. ( PS - please do not label edits that you don't agree with as vandalism. ) Themindset 19:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest creating an article called Latex clothing and perhaps one called Latex fetishism, these would be great articles in which to expand upon the sexual nature of latex. Themindset 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Latex is already a type of clothing. There is no reason to relegate this information to a separate article other than the censorship you seem to be pushing for. The article is already very short, there is no reason to delete all this content just because you don't agree with it. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

Actually, it seems that all the editors disagree with it. You have now reverted the article 4 times. Stop labeling our edits as vandalism, it's rather insulting. Themindset 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You and a friend (It seems very likely "Noisy" is the anonymous editor that was blanking bits of the article in the same manner) disagree with it.

The fact is that the material is commonly used by clothing and the fact that there are whole magazines and many online shops dedicated to the stuff makes it very notable indeed - Please stop trying to censor the article of "sex-related" stuff just because of your own POV/beliefs. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The only "belief" I have is that I believe this kind of sex-obsessed content to be unencyclopedic. Since there is so much culture around latex clothing, wouldn't that qualify it for the creation of its own article? I again encourage you to create a Latex clothing article and elaborate there. Themindset 19:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing unencyclopedic about sex when it's dealt with in a neutral manner the same as any other article - Just because a subject's partly do to with sex doesn't make it any less suitable for Wikipedia. Haven't you seen some of the huge articles around on the subject of things like fellatio? Wikipedia is for *any notable information*... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Precisely, that would be an appropriate article to discuss felatio. But video cameras are used to video-tape fellatio, does that mean that the article about video cameras should have detailed info about how they're used to record the act of fellatio? Note: you have broken the 3RR rule. Themindset 19:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• The only considerations to be made about content on Wikipedia are made clear by Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Essentially, any information that isn't excluded by WWIN but that can be verified, can be included in an article. That's it - that's all there is to it. So the use of latex in relation to sexual/fetish/whatever can go in, no question. The norm in this situation would be to include the information and let it grow until it gets rather over-dominating (exuse the pun!), and then spin it out into a seperate article leaving a small section behind (with a link provided using {{details}}). Dan100 (Talk) 21:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • What about balance and relevance of the article. For instance, I included quite a bit about the breeding behaviour of mallards at the mallard article, but the content of the article was deemed unbalanced, and the breeding info was paired down. When discussed openly and fairly, it was changed and I accepted it. My example of the video camera is à propos, I think that latex probably has over a 1000 uses in today's society, and to unbalance the article so strongly in favour its fetishist applications may lead someone who is reading about latex for the first time to think that latex is predominantly sexual in nature. Themindset 23:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Depends if valid information was taken out or not. We're trying to give every single person on the planet... free access to the sum of all human knowledge [1], don't forget! Dan100 (Talk) 10:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Latex as fetishism vs BDSM

Hi. I found out about this because I was talking to User:Mistress Selina Kyle about an unrelated matter and then found her banned for 3RR violations because of this, so I thought to check it out. I agree that she did break 3RR, and a 24 hour block was appropriate, and she should have discussed it in talk. However, her version was the correct version, and I would like to explain why.

Latex is a type of clothing and is a material henceforth it is fetishism, not BDSM. There are fetishes for such things as leather, plastic, shoes, vinyl, velvet, masks and virtually every material in existence (some not sufficiently common to be worthy of a Wikipedia article). This is the nature of what fetishism is all about. Fetishism can also be for feet, hair, and other things too. Fetishism is in effect a sexual obsession with a type of thing.

Now, BDSM on the other hand often includes fetish elements, but it is not necessarily true. BDSM in essence is bondage, domination, sadism and masochism and can exist without any materials whatsoever. When using bondage, there are of course ties that are used, but this does not necessarily indicate a rope fetish or a handcuff fetish or a fetish with regards to the particular tie that is used. It can quite simply be a desire to be bound, irrespective of the other elements. Domination and submission etc can exist without any materials at all - they can be done wearing normal everyday clothes, or can be done while totally naked.

To emphasise BDSM, certain clothing and styles are frequently worn, which are often related to fetishism, hence there is often a confusion that the two are the same thing.

Fetishism on the other hand does not necessarily indicate BDSM. For example, in certain British Royal circles, there is a foot fetish, but the people concerned are not remotely interested in BDSM. Indeed, latex fetishism can, and does, exist with a lot of people who are not interested in BDSM.

This overlap should not be confused. Latex is always a part of fetishism. It is not always a part of BDSM.

I trust that this is explained. Writing that Latex is a form of BDSM fashion is quite simply wrong. It can however state that it is a fetishism that is often associated with BDSM fashion as well. That would be correct, and a suitable compromise.

Anyway, that's my view on it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree with us that she was wrong to keep reverting to versions that used 'BDSM' I hope that you can convince her. User:Noisy | Talk 12:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, one amusing thing is that BDSM fashion is a redirect to fetish fashion. LOL. Its pretty funny really when you think about it. So we were reverting something that basically means the same thing. hehe. Mind you, I personally think that BDSM fashion is not the same thing as fetish fashion for reasons described above, but hey I guess they overlap so much that its okay. BDSM fashion is really a part of fetish fashion. A bit like how apples are a type of fruit. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Latex Fetish Revert War

This is silly and needs to end. It's patently factual that latex is used as a sexual fetish by many. The article can't solely be about its non-sexual uses if we want to report on every facet of the issue, which seems to me to be what wikipedia is about. On the other hand, we don't necessarily need fetishism to become the main focus of the article. It's merely one use of latex, not the only use or even the most important one. Can you two reply here and have a discussion instead of just reverting each other? Thanks. -Kasreyn 01:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that "Mistress" refuses to discuss things, she just likes to revert (to paraphrase her). Themindset 01:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As I already said in the edit history here:

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO REMOVE ALL SEXUAL CONTENT. GOOGLE "latex fetish" or "latex sex" - EXTREMELY COMMON USE. THOUSANDS OF *LATEX FETISH CLOTHING* SHOPS --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep restoring fetish fashion and fetish club to the See also section. But they are already linked in the previous section, and reduntantly linking topics in the See also section goes against MoS. Themindset 01:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, what is your rationale for deleting all the external links except one then, other than obviously (readers, look at previous comments on this page by Themindset ("not suitable for an encyclopedia/unencyclopedic because it's got sexual content" etc) trying to censor anything related to sex in articles? --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 01:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've told you this before, and I will tell you again, do not put words that I haven't written into quotes. It's very unbecoming. I'm not against sexual content at all, I am against disproportianately focusing a sex-neutral material onto sex. I think one link is sufficient. Also, those other links could be considered linkspam, as they are commercial websites. Themindset 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the commercial links are not appropriate, but moving "Latex and PVC fetishism" down to the bottom with the inaccurate edit summary "moving so it's not first" is just plain petty. It wasn't first in the list to begin with, I ordered it as is our general standard with all disambiguation/See also lists, alphabetically. FCYTravis 21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe it should be in this article at all. It should be in the latex clothing article, which is fully linked to. Themindset 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a perfectly encyclopedic topic that is a major use of latex. Leather fetishism is inline linked from Leather, we have a link to Erotic spanking from Spanking... if anything a "See also" link is too small, we ought to mention it in the main body of the article. I don't quite understand why you think we have to hide the fact that people fetishize latex rubber. FCYTravis 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about keeping it in the See also section, I concede. Themindset 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here; Those links are appropriate, and I put them back. BenBurch 01:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

add condoms manufacture

add condoms manufacturing to this article

Paint

The Paint article points out that Latex is a process and that latex paint is not the same as latex rubber. Should the article be renamed Latex rubber? --Gbleem 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)