Talk:Girlfriend experience

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Girlfriend experience article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Older discussion

I think this article qualifies for deletion but not for speedy deletion. Otherwise you should start deleting all small articles. But maybe there is an agenda here ?Hektor 21:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My only agenda is to continue to tag an article that has been deemed speedy-deletable three times previously. If an admin feels that it should go through the VfD procedure, I have no problem with that. —Cleared as filed. 21:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is more content here than in article Luis Mariano, for instance (I take one I created myself on purpose, so that nobody feels hurt).Hektor 21:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be tagged with VfD 59.93.128.183 06:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-I would like to not get a prostitute article when seeking an article on a "Good Faith Estimate" how about some disambiguation?

Er, and your point is? What next: protect vegetarians from accidentally reading about meat preparation? Or devout Muslims from inadvertently finding a piece about alcohol? There is already disambiguation but please don't bang the drum for your right to not be offended. 90.193.44.83 18:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I was looking for the definition of "GFE" because I saw it on escort ad. So I believe it needs to stay.[reply]

This article should be kept. "Girlfriend Experience" is a term in common usage that merits some explanation and many readers would find it useful, including the one whose comment is shown above. I have cleaned-up the disambig page for GFE, so that complaint ought to be satisfied. Dick Clark 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dick Clark ... I found this article very useful ... could someone please explain the Porn Star Experience with the same level of quality. ````

Useful Information!

I found GFE recently on my boyfriends computer. He was seeking out a prostitute. This is VERY useful information.

hahaha, oh my that is funny. wasn't your bf already getting the GFE? lol :) Mathmo ^Talk 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True GFE ?

Wouldn't true gfe be without a condom ? When I'm with my gf we don't use protection and I leave my junk inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.59.49 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would YOU put your "manhood" unprotected inside the "womanhood" of someone in the commercial sex trade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.95.178 (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a real GFE be to pay her and then for her to have a headache and not want to have sex ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Some parts of the article sound to me as if , someone was trying to protect a business model or simply angry that others don't do it in the real way...

Esspecially, the statement that, The term is defined by those who first created it... the hobbyists. And it is not open to interpretation, debate, or modification.

Providers who provide what they feel meets the subjective side of the definition but not the objective are encouraged to find a different way to describe their services. "intimate", "Mistress experience", "Sensual", ...etc. JUST NOT "GFE""

seems very biased to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandmann XIII (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the article, as written, pushes one rigid interpretation of what's really a loosly defined slang term. -- WombatEd (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chopped out the middle. Removing banner. Someone is welcome to put it back if they can point out what still needs to get scrubbed for POV. - Wallanon (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Acronyms

This page uses numerous acronyms that it does not explain. "LFK, DFK, BBBJ, BBBJNQNS BBBJCIM, DATY, COB, COF". Of those, I think only DFK is explained. This seems undesirable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.130 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added an acronym list at the bottom, but as a total newbie here, I may not have done it in full compliance with WikiPedia standards. I hope some more experienced person shows me the way. WombatEd (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article does need work

Wanted to link to a GFE article for my seemingly endless work trying to get strip club to at least GA. This article is what I found, so I linked it. When I get a few minutes I might add a little to it, but don't want to make it a priority. What ever you see me add, it's really just to try and shape it up so it's relevant to a broader range of topics where the term applies. Good luck fixing this up. - Wallanon (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]