Talk:BDSM

Template:FAOL

Removed image.

I removed the image File:Waiting by Balzac.png from this article and Impact play, because it seems to be rather out of place. First and foremost, I'm not sure why a rendered image is of any use to the article-- there are many photographs that can illustrate BDSM, with real people, so I'm unsure as to what the point of the image would be, seeing as it's clearly substandard to what we can provide.

Secondly, we already have images that illustrate the practice of flogging, this image is purely redundant.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

we often use artwork, rather than photographs, as it avoids the problems of model release, vanity photography and similar aspects. I've re-added it to both works since it seems equally valid as our other illustrations. Max Rebo Band (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't, if we have photographs they are always preferred over drawings or diagrams, especially this low quality poser art. I've gone and removed the image from both articles again, as well as this 'File:Rendered Handcuffed Nude Model.jpg'. Neither of these images are needed in either article, and both are of extremely poor quality compared to the photographic images we have in both articles. I appogize for not replying sooner, but I missed this reply.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Flogging demo folsom 2004.jpg is far from a "high quality photographic image", I mean it's photographic, yes - but beyond that it's really quite poor quality. And the statement "if we have photographs they are always preferred over drawings or diagrams" is patently untrue, want to go look at Rape or Cunnilingus? For sexually explicit subjects, we often prefer to use Art instead of photographs, or we use both. Max Rebo Band (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How about taking both images out? This isn't the article about flogging. Besides, the "rendered" artwork is pretty poor quality, so complaining about the poor quality of the photo seems moot. I'd take out all the rendered images based on this quality criterion. In fact, I'd winnow the images in this article pretty heavily; it seems to be pretty image heavy, and not all images are relevant to the sections they are displayed beside. 99.234.48.101 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Digging around, it looks like both rendered images have been uploaded by Max Rebo Band, and copied off the same external Wiki/website. I'm not sure if the same user created the images or not - almost impossible to tell - but they can hardly be considered to be objective in either case. - 99.234.48.101 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not create the images, take a look at my upload history and you'll see it's not surprising that two BDSM-related images were uploaded by me. Max Rebo Band (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• More importantly, the amount of images in this article is beyond excessive many of them add nothing to the article at all, are decorative only and some only indirectly related. This is the first thing that should be considered rather than who uploaded the image and the quality. Does this article need even more images? --neon white talk 20:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as they ad information? Sure it does...--84.152.125.1 (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On the topic of photographs... Maybe take off that photo of the man with a knife up his bum and another one in his... somewhere. I don't quite see how it compliments or illustrates the fine concepts and practices of the article in such a responsible way. I mean, call me vanilla but maybe the fear of accidental manslaughter is a little more than simply erotic or safe sex play. Doctors see enough accidents as it is. Oops, I did it again. I played with your spleen. Ooo puncture, baby! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.192.254 (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why?

What was wrong with the tone? Solokhabar (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounded a bit negative, so I thought you could come here and say why you made the edits. There's probably nothing wrong, I just wanted to be careful and make sure there wasn't bias being snuck in. Zazaban (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on. What bias? Not a single word in that was negative or biased! What was it biased against? If it was the American to British spellings, then tell. Sorry. You could have merely changed that back if it was so. Didn't mean to offend anyone's linguistic sensibilities. I am neither Brit, nor American, though I do speak more Brit Eng, but that was a small thing. Keep it American if you like. But I don't think the other para, which I added, was wrong. I think it is important to talk about Vanilla sex in order to provide a comparative understanding of BDSM. I think the para that I added is important. Solokhabar (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

When I first read your edits, I also perceived a possible negative bias, but I didn't read it thoroughly then and chose to defer to other editors' opinions. Some examples of why I thought this:

1. Changing "...some BDSM activities may appear to be violent or coercive" to "There is violence or coersion involved" is quite definitive -- the former is more accurate.
2. The sentence describing "the opposite of BDSM" is misleading. My partner occasionally refers to our BDSM activities as "love making", and there is often "fondling" in some sense involved.
3. The description of "vanilla sex" as "non-kinky, traditional activities and sexual positions for achieving orgasm" is not needed, as "vanilla" is defined (correctly, IMHO) later as "sexual behavior without BDSM elements" and linked to a more complete article.

Even though you may not have intended bias, your wording may have given that impression. I agree with the removal -- rephrasing would roughly give or duplicate the original text. HalJor (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Passivity Sex

Whoever suggested that that article be merged with this one is either a moron or an arrogant... ... well back to the point. I assume that person suggested such a thing because of the submission side of BDSM. Submission is about giving up control, it's about taking control. Think about it, how is getting exactly what you want a loss of control. DS isn't about control (well not only about it) it's mainly a contract between two people with socially unacceptable desires there is nothing passive what-so-ever about it.

I doubt you could ask a submissive to explain it. If you must ask someone, ask a Master. In order to achive that title you must have to through understanding of the submissive mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.229.33 (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have to agree. Being submissive has nothing to do with being passive, in my opinion. I am a submissive in case you are curious, and I am not passive in the slightest. I was quite offended by the suggestion that we submissives are. 124.149.54.33 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• The terms top and bottom are more accurate from my point of view while offering a lower potential for too detailed discussions on single aspects.--Nemissimo (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedophile culture

Studies have shown that there may be hidden links between the BDSM culture and the so-called pedophile culture. For instance, it was reported not long ago that Italian police were investigating 186 people after uncovering an Internet pornography site for pedophiles that showed young children being tortured. This could maybe be discussed within the bounds of the article in order to show the existing legal limits against the practice of BDSM. [1] [2] [3] [4] ADM (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Again conflating pedophilia with LGBT people. Really, it's disruptive. Those sources don't seem to hold up to our standards. If you have any reliable sources to support non-fringe POV feel free to present them otherwise this seems to be the latest in dozens of such posting suggesting such inflamatory content litter the encyclopedia. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even mention gays in that last comment, you're the one who did. ADM (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going by your track record coupled with that BDSM culture is historically linked with LGBT people. Regardless your efforts to disassociate sex abuse in Catholic articles or position it as primarily associated with the "problems of homosexuality" while simultaneous linking Jewish people, pedophilia and LGBT people seems a net deficit for Wikipedia. We let reliable sources not the Catholic League lead our articles. -- Banjeboi 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

An inflammatory "hidden link" assertion, claiming "studies" but providing only a quasi-random set of links ... Might not feeding the trolls be the best policy here? BitterGrey (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, however this is the umpteenth talk post they have made such pointy "gee, shouldn't this article ____" statements. When I see them I call them out to halt the nonsense. On some of these well-meaning others waste energy trying to have a good faith discussion when none seems to be sought. I also want to ensure they can't defend these as "No one ever told me they were problematic." Thank you for the post though. -- Banjeboi 18:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I've added an introductory line that could solve some ambiguities. Please give me feedback on the same.

Besides that, I have a slight niggle with this one:

While not always overtly sexual in nature, the activities and relationships within a BDSM context are almost always eroticized by the participants in some fashion.

As terms themselves, "sexual" and "eroticized" could mean different things to different people, since these experiences are subjective. It could be biased to say that BDSM isn't overtly sexual, because what does sexual mean in the first place then? Without any references, this line should not be in the article.

Thanks, A. Alinovic (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I also have an issue with this line. What in the world do we mean?

Many dominatrixes do not see themselves as prostitutes, since sexual intercourse between dominatrix and client usually is out of the question.

This is complete POV. There's no reference being made to anyone who's made a statement like this. It is also untrue. Do we mean that prostitutes always give sexual intercourse? Certainly not!

Can we please begin to remove some of these biased claims?

Alinovic (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see bdsm.org linked to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.185.60 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate image caption on File:BDSM_logo.svg thumbnail

Since the separate "BDSM emblem" article was rather annoyingly deleted, some might claim that the image should not be included in this article at all. However, as long as it is included, it should be accurately described, so I radically changed a previous inaccurate caption for this image ("Tricelli" is a rather strange form of the word "Triskelion", and definitely incorrect in English; there's no evidence that the symbol is intended to represent a rope-separator, and Quagmyr's website gives a very different account of its origin;[5] [6] etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I just saw it has been deleted, what an utter nonsense... Regards,--Nemissimo (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons Conflict strikes again

[7].--Nemissimo (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychology Section Expansion

shouldn't there be some more info on WHY people are into this stuff, not just the incidence, etc?? as a sexually open-minded person that not only doesn't find BDSM arousing, but finds it quite disgusting/creepy (for e.g. the leather mask thing to me is like something out of a horror movie), i'm very curious as to what is behind the attraction to BDSM. is there any correlation with people who were sexually abused as children who grow up to be into BDSM?? why is there not more on the psychology behind BDSM??--Gummy Dummy (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)