Talk:Trade (gay slang)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
US centric
[edit]This discussion is very U.S./"first-world" centric. Do "happily married" men in the U.S. not also engage in "trade" with men in their own country or in Europe (as well as in Brazil and Thailand)? As the article is now, it's disgustingly colonial. 76.254.25.22 (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- it's a colonial concept, mary! an encyclopedia has to present the concept in its most common context. don't get your panties in a twist.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Umm, please. We actually do need to represent multiple viewpoints and it's likely this could use some content/context to help add a more worldwide perspective. All editors are welcome to help. -- Banjeboi 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- it's a colonial concept, mary! an encyclopedia has to present the concept in its most common context. don't get your panties in a twist.Aroundthewayboy (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sexual identity
[edit]The section entitled 'Sexual identity' should be removed. It's written very poorly with no regard to sociological theory regarding sexual identity (i.e. what does it mean to be 'straight' in the first place) and frankly sounds judgmental.Regress (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done. It was poorly written and seemed to cause more problems than it solved. -- Banjeboi 09:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Trade tv
[edit]Is this the source? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Ps Don’t tell Boko Haram I was posting on gay topics, they probably hate me enough as is.
Victorian and Edwardian eras
[edit]This is so out of place within the entire page. There is no context. It Should have a heading to denote it is for a particular country adn perhaps include follow up in each section. Unkagemma (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Complete rewrite?
[edit]I was pleasantly surprised to find an article on this topic and then dismayed at what's here. I see it's a stub, maybe no one's really authored it. But it's a total mess. The section on "Risks" is particularly awful. So is the enterprise of confounding "trade" and "rough trade". The whole article is lacking any grounding in modern understanding of sexuality. I'm not up to the job of writing a proper article but am hopeful maybe someone who is qualified will take it on. Nelson Minar (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)