![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
If you are actively participating in the development of this topic, please consider joining the
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality
Atom
13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a representative site.
The latest Version includes the featured German article and the missing information from the former :en article. I would like to thank everyone helping to archive this and especially User:Jeffpw for the great help and his tremendous support! -- Nemissimo ( talk) 08:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The I have removed the following images from the article:
I put them here in chase someone else finds them helpful for the article.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 10:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hope this helps! Benjiboi 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I added further German sources and references. If you have reliable English sources supporting the statements please ad them as well.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 13:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Pictures are helpful and should still be included on the BDSM page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChastityandCompany ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The article was deleted after an exipired Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. As far as I can remember it was a sound and non-POV article on the subject. The the German version of the article is still avaible as de:Vakuumbett. I'm not to deeply into :en procedures, so if you can do anything about it please do.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have listened to every kinky podcast available on iTunes and a few other pod directories. The list now on this article includes some of the better ones. (Your list also includes one, Kinky Sex Radio, that is mostly a music show without much talk. It is, in my opinion, not very relevant, and not a lot of lifestylers listen to it. And while it does have an RSS feed, which technically makes it a "podcast", it is for the most part, streaming radio more than podcast).
Of kinky podcasts not listed, here's a list of what I'd consider the best. ("Best"= most "real", most educational and/or hot, and done by actual lifestylers, not theorists or pros.)
All are free, and all are by people well-known and respected in kink. (Most of these are also among the most popular kink podcasts, according to iTunes rankings. On iTunes, under a search today of "BDSM podcast", the top three are, in order, Polyamory Weekly, Ropecast, and Submission and Coffee.) Top ten changes, but often includes the rest here.
Here's my suggestions for additions of podcasts of genuine usefulness to people interested in BDSM:
D/s ropework show http://rope.podshow.com/
Podiobook (Podcast audiobook) of Dollie Llama and ThornDaddy's book "Diary of an S&M Romance", http://www.podiobooks.com/title/sm-diary Dollie Llama recorded the spoken wikipedia article on "BDSM".
Just what the name says. And it's hosted by a BDSM lifestyle switch woman, and frequently includes BDSM. Sometimes co-hosted by the host's submissive. http://polyweekly.libsyn.com/
http://subophelia.podomatic.com/ Infrequent but great cast from lifestyle/pro submissive woman. She is a pro, but also married in a 24/7 relationship, and does not use the cast to "hook" customers.
http://www.greatsexgames.com/podcast/ Not only kink, but about all sex. Includes some kink-friendly discussions Very popular educational sex cast that sometimes covers BDSM.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alyssium YouTube podcast (yes, it has an RSS feed) of BDSM educational information. Hasn't been updated in six months, but there are over 20 episodes, and it's very good stuff, especially for beginners. Hosted by female lifestyle submissive, it's just her talking into a webcam, but is very down to earth and informative. Not listed on iTunes, but some of the episodes have over 10,000 views, so it does qualify as popular, as well as being useful and easy to digest. I'd highly recommend for anyone just getting their feet wet. ---
I would consider scrutinizing any future podcast additions by pro Dommes (and submissives)...There seems to be a glut (dozens or scores) of podcasts by pros that are nothing more than long, weekly advertisements to hook clients, and are not really exemplary of positive BDSM relationships. Nothing against pros, but seriously, I'd recommend *listening* to any podcasts proffered to Wikipedia by pros before adding to the BDSM article in the future.
The same would apply to links to websites and blogs run by pros. There are hundreds, if not thousands. I'm sure some will try to add links in the future, if they haven't already.
ElizaBarrington ( talk) 19:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Good call, Nemissimo. Of the six I mentioned, those two are the most "all about BDSM by lifestylers." (Except the YouTube one, but I don't think it's being updated any more, which makes it probably not a "podcast" in most definitions.) And yeah, limits on numbers of links is good. wikipedia is not a series of tubes, I mean a collection of links. lol..... ElizaBarrington ( talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe it might be a good idea to add 8mm (film) (1999) (it was in the original list). The movie is typical mainstream and clearly based on the exploitation of BDSM. It mixes up snuff movies, bondage and rape. It was highly controversial at its time. Any objections? -- Nemissimo ( talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I object unless it's made VERY clear that it's an exploitation movie AND HAS NOTHING TO DO with consensual BDSM.
On its own, 8mm not a bad "outsider-goes-into-the-belly-of-the-beast" whodunnit popcorn flick (which owes more than a little to the much better 1979 George C. Scott flick, "Hardcore"). HOWEVER, it's movies like 8mm that taint public perception of bondage as something practiced exclusively by child-murdering sociopaths.
I would be interested in seeing TWO lists of movies here, one for exploitation flicks, and another list with more safe, sane and consensual offerings.
The difference is somewhat subjective, but the far ends of it are not. I'd like it if people seeking information on BDSM didn't find "Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma" (another movie about raping, degrading and murdering children) lumped in with "The Secretary" (which, despite the characters' flaws, is probably the healthiest movie entirely about D/s to ever come out of Hollywood.)
Basically, the problem is this: there *aren't* a lot of films that show safe, sane and consensual D/s, because it doesn't make for compelling stories by Hollywood standards.
Remember, the first thing they teach screenwriters in film school is that "Conflict is the essence of drama."
ElizaBarrington ( talk) 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Nemissimo for removing Salo. I have always felt that sexual slavery was its delivery mechanism, but not its true topic. I feel Salo's topic is actually the horrors of Fascism under Benito Mussolini.
As for 8mm, how do you (and others here) feel about the "two-list" idea? I think that's a really good way to make any movie that mentions BDSM to be able to be listed as a resource, but not confuse newcommers to the topic. I feel that putting 8mm in the same list as Secretary ....I dunno...It's kind of like saying that someone like the BTK Killer is "kinky". The BTK Killer liked to tie ladies up, but I don't consider him the same species as people in consensual BDSM relationships.
The media's tainting of public perception of BDSM to sell tickets is a pet peeve of mine, but let's put it in more Wikipedian terms: Wikipedia is more or less the first place many people go for information. A Wikipedia article is often the first thing to come up in a Google search on a subject (with movie titles, it usually comes up before even IMDB). If that information is not clear, whether people are searching movies or BDSM, people will walk away MORE confused, not less confused.
How about this: make two lists. Instead of calling one "exploitation" (which has more of a moral judgment in it) and the other "non-exploitative" how about if we call one "consensual (true) BDSM" and one "Movies with non-consensual BDSM images and motifs" or something similar.
Basically however, my bottom line is that I don't think movies with non-consensual bondage and domination belong in the Wikipedia BDSM article, because it contradicts this (well-stated, I feel) paragraph within the article:
"The fundamental principles for the exercise of BDSM require that it be performed by mature and responsible partners, of their own volition, and in a safe way. Since the 1990s, these basic principles have been condensed into the motto "safe, sane and consensual", also abbreviated as SSC, which means everything is based on safe, sane and consenting behavior of all involved parties. This mutual consent makes a clear legal and ethical distinction between BDSM and crimes such as sexual assault or domestic violence."
My "two-list" idea is really just a compromise. I think that in reality, 8mm (and Salo, and other movies of that variety) belongs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_films not here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdsm
P/s have you ever SEEN Salo? I have. I know a lot of people have fought for it be available due to its "artistic merit", but I will never watch it again. It makes 8mm look like a Disney film, and that's not much of an exaggeration.
Thank you, ElizaBarrington ( talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't support two lists of movies but instead qualify the ones that are consensual as such ans explain that historically BDSM has been exploited and give a few examples of notable ones that have articles already. Benjiboi 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Unimaginative Username made a good point. I suggest we stay with one list. If any of the titles there isn't fitting we should discuss it here as done above with Salo.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 12:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Separate section for accessories/tools used looks a good option. Builtrain ( talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent). Nemissimo, your goals and intent are admirable but know that reasonable discourse and article history don't have as much meaning for all. As a suggestion you may want to start a new talk section just on article structure outlining the article structure and possibly drilling down in major subsections to build a documented consensus as to is this the best structure for now. I personally have no interest in the article history in Germany, it's simply a different culture and way of doing things although I'm sure a lot of it was solid. I could be wrong on this but i think building a consensus here would help ensure that any structural issues are addressed and that the article integrity would be strengthened in the long run. An idea to help the process, are there any FA articles that deal with similar "hobbies" that might be useful for comparison with their own equipment, cultures, etc.? Benjiboi 17:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone an idea why the articles size seems to have increased dramaticaly from about 77K to 84K while only minor edits and reverted structural changes have taken place? That's really strange and gives a wrong impression. Never realized an effect like this before...-- Nemissimo ( talk) 10:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 09:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It has been suggested to discuss the article's structure in order to build a strong documented consensus on it. Background info: From my point of view the current structure is quite far developed, It has been discussed very extensively in other language versions of Wikipedia and is used in the featured Spanish and German articles. Since I'm aware that this is :en and most editors would find it difficult to retrace the archives there, I believe it is a good idea to discuss it again.
General concept:
The basic idea behind the article's structure is to provide a general condensed overview on the relevant aspects as a "main article" based on subsidiarity were possible. It aims at structuring the complexity of the overall topic into clear thematic segments, describing the most important facets of the topic while establishing a connection between them. At the same time the segments wikilink into "subarticles" related to the topic, which can be further expanded and deepened without "over expanding" the main article.
The structure allows it to integrate further relevant content without any need to redesign it from the ground. Therefor it is totally easy and uncomplex eg. to adapt it even further to national aspects (US, UK, Japan, Brazil or whatsoever) or to integrate possible new relevant aspects without endangering the article's overall structural integrity.
From my point of view this structure offers a good base to bring clarity not only to the topic itself, but also to the field of articles surrounding it. --
Nemissimo (
talk)
10:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Outdent. Let's only use other language versions as a guide to what is possible and stay focussed on if there is anything that needs to be addressed here, after all we are discussing changes to this article not those and already numerous changes have changed what you would find on each of those other articles. Please consider first that this is the current main section line-up:
Does it make sense, is it a good read and flow for our average reader and would our friends who assess Featured articles agree that this is the best order. If not what should be moved, renamed, merged or otherwise changed and why? Please try to be brief and remain dispassionate to our goal of writing the best article possible. Benjiboi 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An automated review suggested to check the article to be consistent with either American or British spelling. Since I'm no native speaker it would be great if anybody else could do this check. -- Nemissimo ( talk) 10:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there an applicable infobox for this article? I'm not really sure if a LGBT and Queer studies or Sexual orientation infobox would be the right one. -- Nemissimo ( talk) 10:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I felt a further explanation of changes was necessary:
I substituted "power exchange" and "fetish" for the narrower "leather sex" as alternative names for BDSM. While it's true that leather may play an important rôle in BDSM, it's not essential and some participants 'play' with leather, latex, and so on without other BDSM elements. Indeed, leather is often associated with aspects of gay sex, hence the term "leather boys". Further, under Symbols, the article refers to leather as a subculture, which is a more accurate description.
Note: The SSC guidelines have been promoted since the 1980s, if not long before. For more than four decades, the University of Washington in Seattle has promoted seminars which included these rules, although SSC and RACK acronyms are undoubtedly more recent. I don't remember for certain, but Janet Hardy may have given seminars herself in the late 1980s.
-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned about the following sentence: "Failure to honor a safeword is considered the most serious misconduct that can take place in BDSM and is a crime." (Last sentence in Fundamentals just above Safety.) I don't have access to the Wiseman SM 101 book, but if we grant that the sentence exists in the text, we still have a problem whether or not the statement is factual. Where in the criminal code does this exist? If we are to believe that somewhere in law such a codification of BDSM is written, where is it?
I believe this sentence should either be struck entirely or proved with further references.
-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 12:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence in SM 101 is "Failure to honor a safeword is a crime". This is an indirect quotation. Beside this source it is also clearly common sense. Ignoring a safeword automatically equals ignoring the Bottom's explicitly withdrawn consent. Without consent practically all BDSM practices are illegal (e.g. illegal restraint, insult or battery). -- Nemissimo ( talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Part of the article now reads,
Contracts that are contra bonos mores (contrary to public morals) are generally illegal, and such contracts can even be constitutionally prohibited. In Europe, such agreements may be contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which grants a general freedom from "unhuman or degrading treatment". This right had been held to be absolute and no limitations or derogations are permitted by the Convention.
Does this strike anyone else as a legal fallacy or misunderstanding? There is a huge difference between a law and a right. I.e., it is illegal to break a law; it is not illegal to not exercise a right. The absolute freedom of speech does not make it criminal to put tape over someone's mouth if that person doesn't mind. Heck, if rights were enforced like that, we'd have half the adult population of the U.S. in jail for not voting. 66.251.26.61 09:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The "dress codes" mentioned under Parties and Clubs is spurious at best and may be someone's view of what they might wish to occur rather than what does occur. I believe the sentences related to dress code should either be deleted entirely (since fetish wear is discussed elsewhere), or at least redefined as 'suggestions'.
From Miami to Seattle, invitees are generally welcome no matter what they wear. The 'culture' in some ways is geared toward breaking rules, rather than imposing new rules. The only dress code I've ever encountered restricted nudity in public clubs, otherwise, invitees were welcome to wear costume or street clothes as they saw fit. A quick check with clubs in Columbus, Ohio and Edmonton, Alberta seemed to show a tolerance: they all welcome fetish wear but in no way require it. Further, the dress code assertion contains no references, and for a statement this broad, more than one reference should be required.
-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The article describes the situation in most European countries, especially Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Maybe it would be an good idea to add one or two sentences making clear that customs in the US&UK (?) do or may differ. I think this article offers a great chance to include international differences in BDSM cultures and its public perception in comparison. BDSM isn't taking place in the US only and especially a UK view would be very interesting. Legal status is a very obvious subject to this opportunity. Since I'm no lawyer I was not able to translate the far more advanced de:Legal status with a detailed description on the legal situation in four countries.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In progress, in multiple sessions over the next few days. (Was "sessions" a poor choice of words here?) Unimaginative Username 04:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The "Prejudices" section has no references at all, including for such assertions as "There is no clear correlation between the position in everyday life and BDSM preferences." This smacks (so to speak) of OR.
This article may need substantial revision, including substantial deletions, if sources cannot be found for many areas. I'll take a hiatus in copy-editing for a few days and watch this page. Also, feel free to message my talk page. Regards, Unimaginative Username 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"Cite everything. In line citations are one of the basic FA criteria. The rule is one citation for each paragraph. My advice? One citation for each sentence! In this way you'll avoid these annoying [citation needed], you'll impress and you'll convince everybody about the high level of your research. Especially assertions and assessment should be definitely cited."
Of course BDSM is an abbreviation, the question is, is it a acronym or a initialism? Quote from Acronym and initialism:
Initialism originally described abbreviations formed from initials, without reference to pronunciation. During the mid-20th century, when such abbreviations became increasingly common, the word acronym was coined for abbreviations pronounced as words, such as NATO and AIDS. Of the names, acronym is the most frequently used and known; many use it to describe any abbreviation formed from initial letters. Others differentiate between the two terms, restricting acronym to pronounceable words formed from the initial letters of the constituent words, and using initialism or alphabetism for abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters.
Since I'm no native speaker I'm asking for your opinion on this. I would use the term acronym, but if initialism is more common or correct... it's fine with me. So what do you think? -- Nemissimo ( talk) 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
While I often find myself the defender of correctness, I must favor "acronym". Never that I can remember have I heard someone use initialism that way, casually or formally, and I tend to hang around educated and rather literate people. Here is Oxford's take on it:
These are consistent with the information already provided, but I don't think they preclude the use of "acronym". 66.251.26.61 09:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is necessary to be able to identify a bottom's psychological crash...
Your friendly copy-editor here. It's apparent that "crash" as used here has a meaning different from everyday usage (automobile crash, stock market crash), so a brief definition of the specialized meaning should be provided (in parentheses).
Unimaginative Username
02:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dossie Easton, Janet W. Hardy: The New Topping Book. Page 111-112, Greenery Press (CA) 2002, ISBN 1-890159-36-0:
"Emotional Glitches In our experience, by far the most common scene mishap is an unforseen emotional reaction the part of a participant -panic, anger, regression or other intense emotions. Freak-outs happen for a variety of reasons: flashbacks to burried memories of abuse or trauma; one or another partner "forgetting" that the scene is supposed to be playful and consensual, and getting the role and reality confused; real world sneaking into scene space: the possibilities are manifold."
Arne Hoffmann: Das Lexikon des Sadomasochismus, Page 10, Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf 2000, ISBN 3-896-022-903(German). (Translation Quick&Dirty):
"("Absturz")-> Sadomasochistic scene which has to be canceled. This commonly happens when one of both partners has crossed his mental(?)-emotional limits. Primarily this happens on the side of Bottoms, but Tops can be asked too much as well so that the situation can slips out of his control and a continuing of the scene becomes impossible."
Jay Wiseman: SM 101: A Realistic Introduction, Pages 316, ISBN 0963976389:
"Loss of emotional balance("freakouts")- Loss of emotional balance (freaking out) due to sensory or emotional overload is the most common SM emergency. This is usually due to failure to follow basic safety procedures (But not always. Sometimes SM play unexpectedly touches an unknown emotional hot spot. Repressed memories sometimes get triggered, phobias get tweaked and so forth)... Submissives experience most freakouts, but dominants may also experience them."
I myself would prefer the term "freakout" with a few words of explanation. If my memory isn't leading me into a false direction the term "crash" was used in the old version.-- Nemissimo 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Sadomasochism" is a portmanteau of "sadism" and "masochism"; as the link indicates, these are different. This section presently appears to refer only to sadism, not to masochism. A detailed discussion isn't needed, since there is a link, but the differentiation should be made. (assume readers are not familiar with the article's subjects) Unimaginative Username 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Discipline incorporates sadomasochistic aspects. But there is no definition of what discipline is or which aspects it incorporates. (Target = readers with zero knowledge.) Unimaginative Username 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion:
Discipline
The term discipline describes the use of rules and punishment to control overt behavior in BDSM. Punishment can be pain caused physically (such as caning), humiliation caused psychologically (such as a public flagellation) or loss of freedom caused physically (eg. chaining the Bottom to the foot of a bed). Another aspect is the structured training of the Bottom. A contraction/affiliation (?) with practices from the field of Bondage can occur, but is not necessarily mandatory. A differentiation between Bondage and Discipline is sometimes difficult.
Guess, this should be sufficient. -- Nemissimo 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the use of "top/bottom" in the fundamentals section to ascertain the use of the terms top/bottom and find a way to make the further application coherent for the entire text. I hope this helps zero-knowledge readers but I'm not sure if this is okay with the friendly copy-editor ;-), it may be a very European way to solve the problem -- Ivy ( talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the BDSM term for "Excellent"? Answers the above issue perfectly. I moved your comment to be with the original post of the issue -- hope you don't mind. I should have subdivided these in the first place, before the threads got involved. Good job. Done
Unimaginative Username (
talk)
06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
the expression is used in usual emancipated relationships... It's not clear what is meant by "usual emancipated relationships", especially since one definition of "emancipated" is: "freed, as from slavery or bondage". This article is rather about the opposite :) Let me know what the article is trying to say here and I'll help revise the sentence. Unimaginative Username 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... well... don't want to seem like the copy-editor is re-writing the article to suit personal preference, but we are supposed to be the users with the word skills, so I guess I'll take a whack at it (so to speak):
Is this accurate? Fair? Representative? Be as free with your commentary as your c/e has been! Unimaginative Username ( talk) 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The Bottom is frequently the partner who specifies the basic conditions of the session and gives instructions directly or indirectly in the apron. What is meant by "apron" here? Everyone involved in BDSM must wear an apron? -- probably not. Help with the intent, please. Unimaginative Username 05:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Changed to "... gives instructions, directly or indirectly, in the prelude to the session ..." Objections? Agreement? Unimaginative Username ( talk) 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be so picky. However, the FA reviewers are even more critical (notoriously so), so forewarned is forearmed. :) Unimaginative Username 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Youre absolutly right that's an example of a pretty userunfriendly layout. I added a wikilink to female dominance above and will try to make it more clear. Basicly there are no "writen rules" how a Bottom has to adress his or her Top. This is allways decided within the relationship. The "black link" given above leads to a diagram describing the relation of different understandings of of roletyp within BDSM. All BDSM interaktion take place between a Top and a Bottom (the general, neutral terms, only describing who is active and who is passive), Dom/Sub describes a Domination and submission (BDSM) relationship, Master(Mistress)/Slave is very often used in Total Power Exchange. At the end couples decide for themself what kind of picture of their relationship's nature they want to shape and use the according terms. Overlays of these rolemodells can occur, however. Professionals and their costumers do usualy decide to use Master(Mistress)/Slave since this is the most "basic"/"reduced"(?) concept, enhancing the costumers mindset during the scene. I hope the following explanations from Wipipedia make it clearer:
Furthermore, Tops in a D/s context are called Doms (short for "dominants") and bottoms in D/s are subs (short for "submissive"). It's very important to remember that not all tops are doms, and not all bottoms are subs (i.e. not everyone into some parts of BDSM is into the D/s part.).
Likewise, Tops in a M/s context are called Masters and their bottoms are slaves. Although a lot of doms and subs enjoy using the terms "Master" or "slave", it should be realised that just as not all tops are Doms not all Doms are Masters, and just as not all bottoms are subs not all subs are slaves (i.e. not everyone into some parts of BDSM is into the M/s part.) The diagram should help make this clearer.
Not only are not all bottoms subs but a bottom is not necessarily submissive. At one end of the continuum is a submissive who enjoys taking orders from a dominant but does not receive any physical stimulation. At the other is a bottom who enjoys the intense physical and psychological stimulation but does not submit to the person delivering them.
I hope this helps-- Nemissimo ( talk) 11:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"Today the BDSM culture exists in most western countries." Most of this section -- and indeed, much of the article -- lacks the citations to reliable sources that are expected in WP. However, a categorical assertion like this one cannot remain without support. Guidelines: WP:V and WP:PROVEIT. If a source other than personal knowledge is not available (within a few days), it needs to be removed. (Also, does the culture exist in Eastern countries? If not, why the difference?) Unimaginative Username 04:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The list of cities with large BDSM cultures appears to be merely a list of the largest cities in Canada, the US, and Europe. Are the concentrations of BDSM-ers in these cities disproportionately large, and are there studies or reputable surveys to support this? Unimaginative Username 04:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"The documentation of the existence of the BDSM culture in some countries is impeded by laws prohibiting such activity and/or by official censorship of the expression of such ideas." (Here, you cite specific countries and the evidence. For example, one post above mentioned Arab countries. If you have an article or source about someone in such a country being arrested or punished for BDSM participation, cite it. If you have sources of such laws prohibiting it, cite them.) "Evidence for the widespread existence of BDSM culture, in such countries and in many others around the world, includes online communities and dating sites devoted to BDSM practitioners. For example, the BDSM dating site (cite collarme) has participants from (go count the number of countries there, you lazy girl) and (easier count) continents."
This article now references "Silver Moon Books and successor Bdsmbooks.com"
I'm not positive "successor" is the correct term. I fear someone (Bdsmbooks.com?) might be trying to pull something here. "Silver Moon" seems to still be publishing and has titles listed as "coming soon" on http://www.adultbookshops.com/index.html
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Moon_Books seems to say bdsmbooks.com is a new company founded by an editor who used to work at Silver Moon.
Seems fishy to me that the word "sucessor" is being used here on the BDSM page. Feels like maybe someone is striking off on their own and trying to bury the former emplyoer perhaps?
For what it's worth, I'm a fan of erotic fiction, and this is the first I've heard of bdsmbooks.com. Silver Moon is an established, respected company. For what else it's worth, Silver Moon's website looks and feels really pro and bdsmbooks.com looks not unlike a 1996 AOL home page. (I'm also posting some of this on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Moon_Books page as argument to oppose deletion that is being called for there.) ElizaBarrington ( talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Unimaginative Username (great name, by the way)-- Cool. Good call, IMHO.
Regarding "As to whether to have the link to bdsmbooks.com..." I'd vote no. The books don't really seem like literature, they read (from the excerpts on the site) like quickly churned pulp. And someone there seems to be spamming here (and on the Silver Moon Wikipedia page, if anyone wants to take a look at that.) And BDSMbooks.com only sells books in eBook form, unlike silvermoon, which also publishes print books, and has for a long time. The eBook "cover" photos for BDSMbooks.com look like they're stock photos taken from other websites. I even recognized a few from elsewhere.
FWIW: several of the stories on bdsmbooks.com seem to involve non-consensual and violent sex with characters as young as 12 years old. That fucking squicks me out, and I don't really want to help someone spam stuff like that on a Wikipedia page dedicated to safe, sane and consensual BDSM, even if it's "just fiction." ElizaBarrington ( talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It is wonderful to see so much improvement and discussion for improvement in this article. I think that the editors here now have a good idea of what reviewers expect to see in a Featured Article or Good Article. Here is my humble suggestion:
Fair enough? Good luck to all, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 06:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking the article off the list at the League of Copy-Editors Request page for now. Unfortunately, the prescribed way to do that is to mark "copy-edit denied". Please, don't anyone take offense -- the progress is substantial, it will surely continue, and I'm looking forward to see what the editors here have accomplished when they're ready to request the copy-edit again. Regards to all, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 04:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Steve:
on the subject of age: look at http://www.bdsmbooks.com/Extracts/es08.htm search the terms: "twelve year old who" and "Sixteen. Last week sometime. The Bedford orphanage." ElizaBarrington ( talk) 08:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
in reading over the article i noticed that i couldnt find a link to the List of BDSM organizations page, perhaps there is a reason behind this i'm not aware of? but it caught me as rather odd. it also struck me as rather strange how small the list was. i know there are not a plethora of organizations, but it seemed rather limited and wondered also if anyone had the knowledge to expand it a bit? it also leaves clubs and conventions to float about in space for the time being since neither had pages i could find. i'm rather new at this wiki thing (and the BDSM thing at that), so i don't know how much use i'm being as much more than an observer. hope this helps even the littlest bit? -sparrow Sparrows.heart ( talk) 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope that this useful information. ISD ( talk) 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this article is dificient without a discussion of "hard and soft limits" and "aftercare." While it talks about "contracts" and "safewords," the "limits" issue is too central to be ignored. The whole issue of "aftercare" is too often neglected, and "safe, sane, and consensual" is difficient without it. - Lisbeth k24 ( talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the untranslated German text in the section on Germany? If someone puts it back in, I would continue to work on translating it. And what happened to the entire section on the legal status in Austria? Is Austria somehow no longer important?-- Bhuck ( talk) 10:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The article lists North American and European cities with large BDSM scenes. The lists are quite similar to lists of large North American and European cities, and therefore not of very much use. Instead, it would be better to say that large cities tend to have a concentration of venues for BDSM and discuss why this might be (general sort of concentration-of-diaspora issues that apply to gay bars, Jewish synagogues, Green party voters or whatever). If statistics about higher per-capita BDSM incidence are available (number of BDSM institutions per 100,000 population, for example), this would also be more informative than just listing the largest cities.-- Bhuck ( talk) 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before (probably should have checked), but this article reads very much like a polemic essay rather than an objective article that minimizes bias. It really seems if it were put together by a PR rep for the BDSM 'community'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.102.165 ( talk) 12:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Chastity belts should be included or at least mentioned within BDSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChastityandCompany ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are there only pictures of women tied up on this page? Where are all the pictures of tied-up men? Supriya 21:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"Why are there only pictures of women tied up on this page? Where are all the pictures of tied-up men?"
i agree there is an inordinate amount of women bound in these photos in comparison of those of bound men —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
External link 38, "Worldwide Club and Munch Directory" to www.worldwidebdsm.com appears to be dead.
I will check it again in a few days and unless anyone has a better idea I will change it to link to another munch directory site, www.munchcentral.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien Conspiracy ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the new topic I have added today, this is my first time posting on here, and I can see there are a couple of mistakes already but I will edit it again. I thought subspace needed to be discussed as it is a very important thing in bdsm. I also feel top space should be discussed, however having not experienced it I do not feel it is something I could disucss. I couldn't see anything on subspace under bdsm at all so thought it would be appropritate to write something about the submissive persons state of mind.
Thanks
Emily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 ( talk) 09:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok thank you for the information, I have a book called rafical ecstasy, as this discusses sub space in some areas I will maybe try and find another book too. Thank you. Emily —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.80.240.66 (
talk)
08:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What was wrong with the tone? Solokhabar ( talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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; [11] [12] etc.). AnonMoos ( talk) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't really want to keep this page on my watchlist, but it seems that every time I stop by, the article discussion of the triskelion is rather problematic... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
1."is there any correlation with people who were sexually abused as children who grow up to be into BDSM??"
-No, but for thanks for the good laugh.
2."why is there not more on the psychology behind BDSM??"
-No one has any idea, that's why.
I do agree there should be more of an expansion, but the only way to expand I can think of is ways in which practitioners increase feelings of humiliation, objectification, submission, and dominance, as further explaining the "why" the enjoy these feelings won't really lead anywhere.
Wikiposter0123 (
talk)
20:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikiposter0123 ( talk) 04:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The article stated that Larry Townsend's *The Leatherman's Handbook* described "The Old Guard." However, his description of leather/BDSM culture is almost completely at odds with descriptions of "Old Guard" I've read. For example, the OG is usually described as being intolerant of switching. Townsend explicitly states that "leathermen" (his term) were switches more often than not and provides examples and details to back up the claim. Likewise, the OG culture is usually described as tightly knit and hierarchical, with successive ranks and commensurate privileges. Townsend, however, describes a loose community in which everyone is a free agent and on roughly equal social footing. I just don't see how anyone can read Townsend's book as a description of The Old Guard.
I've removed the reference to the Old Guard. If someone wants to put in a new one, I just ask that they don't use *The Leatherman's Handbook* as a reference to support their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay201 ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding actual experience with practitioners of BDSM, I'd say the motives are more multi-factorial (and not all are enigmatically psychological.)
For example, I once enquired a Female Submissive as to why she enjoyed being dominated by me. She delineated that it was simply due to the fact she had always "been in control" throughout her life, therefore BDSM allowed her to periodically inhabit an outlet in which she didn’t “have to make the decisions”.
A brief conclusion, but still (I think) intriguing none the less.
In regards to Gummy, I always tend to be angered by the correlation of “psychology” and “BDSM“, simply because I believe it's often perpetrated out of a reactionary fear or conjectured misunderstanding towards the practice; pathologization.
It’s disheartening when practitioners are regarded as mentally sick etc. as it in fact takes great mental stability/trust to engage in acts of regulated BDSM. The psychology is interesting, but most practitioners I’ve met are imaginative and/or intelligent people, who simply admire more creativity in stimulation; sexual or otherwise. User:LLLookAtYouHacker ( talk) 11:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.198.128 ( talk)
I would like to suggest a new link for the bottom of the BDSM page external links area.
http://www.fortheloveofkink.com
It is a growing site with new articles on BDSM added all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortheloveofkink ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
If you are actively participating in the development of this topic, please consider joining the
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality
Atom
13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a representative site.
The latest Version includes the featured German article and the missing information from the former :en article. I would like to thank everyone helping to archive this and especially User:Jeffpw for the great help and his tremendous support! -- Nemissimo ( talk) 08:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The I have removed the following images from the article:
I put them here in chase someone else finds them helpful for the article.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 10:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hope this helps! Benjiboi 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I added further German sources and references. If you have reliable English sources supporting the statements please ad them as well.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 13:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Pictures are helpful and should still be included on the BDSM page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChastityandCompany ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The article was deleted after an exipired Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. As far as I can remember it was a sound and non-POV article on the subject. The the German version of the article is still avaible as de:Vakuumbett. I'm not to deeply into :en procedures, so if you can do anything about it please do.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have listened to every kinky podcast available on iTunes and a few other pod directories. The list now on this article includes some of the better ones. (Your list also includes one, Kinky Sex Radio, that is mostly a music show without much talk. It is, in my opinion, not very relevant, and not a lot of lifestylers listen to it. And while it does have an RSS feed, which technically makes it a "podcast", it is for the most part, streaming radio more than podcast).
Of kinky podcasts not listed, here's a list of what I'd consider the best. ("Best"= most "real", most educational and/or hot, and done by actual lifestylers, not theorists or pros.)
All are free, and all are by people well-known and respected in kink. (Most of these are also among the most popular kink podcasts, according to iTunes rankings. On iTunes, under a search today of "BDSM podcast", the top three are, in order, Polyamory Weekly, Ropecast, and Submission and Coffee.) Top ten changes, but often includes the rest here.
Here's my suggestions for additions of podcasts of genuine usefulness to people interested in BDSM:
D/s ropework show http://rope.podshow.com/
Podiobook (Podcast audiobook) of Dollie Llama and ThornDaddy's book "Diary of an S&M Romance", http://www.podiobooks.com/title/sm-diary Dollie Llama recorded the spoken wikipedia article on "BDSM".
Just what the name says. And it's hosted by a BDSM lifestyle switch woman, and frequently includes BDSM. Sometimes co-hosted by the host's submissive. http://polyweekly.libsyn.com/
http://subophelia.podomatic.com/ Infrequent but great cast from lifestyle/pro submissive woman. She is a pro, but also married in a 24/7 relationship, and does not use the cast to "hook" customers.
http://www.greatsexgames.com/podcast/ Not only kink, but about all sex. Includes some kink-friendly discussions Very popular educational sex cast that sometimes covers BDSM.
http://www.youtube.com/user/alyssium YouTube podcast (yes, it has an RSS feed) of BDSM educational information. Hasn't been updated in six months, but there are over 20 episodes, and it's very good stuff, especially for beginners. Hosted by female lifestyle submissive, it's just her talking into a webcam, but is very down to earth and informative. Not listed on iTunes, but some of the episodes have over 10,000 views, so it does qualify as popular, as well as being useful and easy to digest. I'd highly recommend for anyone just getting their feet wet. ---
I would consider scrutinizing any future podcast additions by pro Dommes (and submissives)...There seems to be a glut (dozens or scores) of podcasts by pros that are nothing more than long, weekly advertisements to hook clients, and are not really exemplary of positive BDSM relationships. Nothing against pros, but seriously, I'd recommend *listening* to any podcasts proffered to Wikipedia by pros before adding to the BDSM article in the future.
The same would apply to links to websites and blogs run by pros. There are hundreds, if not thousands. I'm sure some will try to add links in the future, if they haven't already.
ElizaBarrington ( talk) 19:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Good call, Nemissimo. Of the six I mentioned, those two are the most "all about BDSM by lifestylers." (Except the YouTube one, but I don't think it's being updated any more, which makes it probably not a "podcast" in most definitions.) And yeah, limits on numbers of links is good. wikipedia is not a series of tubes, I mean a collection of links. lol..... ElizaBarrington ( talk) 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe it might be a good idea to add 8mm (film) (1999) (it was in the original list). The movie is typical mainstream and clearly based on the exploitation of BDSM. It mixes up snuff movies, bondage and rape. It was highly controversial at its time. Any objections? -- Nemissimo ( talk) 23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I object unless it's made VERY clear that it's an exploitation movie AND HAS NOTHING TO DO with consensual BDSM.
On its own, 8mm not a bad "outsider-goes-into-the-belly-of-the-beast" whodunnit popcorn flick (which owes more than a little to the much better 1979 George C. Scott flick, "Hardcore"). HOWEVER, it's movies like 8mm that taint public perception of bondage as something practiced exclusively by child-murdering sociopaths.
I would be interested in seeing TWO lists of movies here, one for exploitation flicks, and another list with more safe, sane and consensual offerings.
The difference is somewhat subjective, but the far ends of it are not. I'd like it if people seeking information on BDSM didn't find "Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma" (another movie about raping, degrading and murdering children) lumped in with "The Secretary" (which, despite the characters' flaws, is probably the healthiest movie entirely about D/s to ever come out of Hollywood.)
Basically, the problem is this: there *aren't* a lot of films that show safe, sane and consensual D/s, because it doesn't make for compelling stories by Hollywood standards.
Remember, the first thing they teach screenwriters in film school is that "Conflict is the essence of drama."
ElizaBarrington ( talk) 02:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Nemissimo for removing Salo. I have always felt that sexual slavery was its delivery mechanism, but not its true topic. I feel Salo's topic is actually the horrors of Fascism under Benito Mussolini.
As for 8mm, how do you (and others here) feel about the "two-list" idea? I think that's a really good way to make any movie that mentions BDSM to be able to be listed as a resource, but not confuse newcommers to the topic. I feel that putting 8mm in the same list as Secretary ....I dunno...It's kind of like saying that someone like the BTK Killer is "kinky". The BTK Killer liked to tie ladies up, but I don't consider him the same species as people in consensual BDSM relationships.
The media's tainting of public perception of BDSM to sell tickets is a pet peeve of mine, but let's put it in more Wikipedian terms: Wikipedia is more or less the first place many people go for information. A Wikipedia article is often the first thing to come up in a Google search on a subject (with movie titles, it usually comes up before even IMDB). If that information is not clear, whether people are searching movies or BDSM, people will walk away MORE confused, not less confused.
How about this: make two lists. Instead of calling one "exploitation" (which has more of a moral judgment in it) and the other "non-exploitative" how about if we call one "consensual (true) BDSM" and one "Movies with non-consensual BDSM images and motifs" or something similar.
Basically however, my bottom line is that I don't think movies with non-consensual bondage and domination belong in the Wikipedia BDSM article, because it contradicts this (well-stated, I feel) paragraph within the article:
"The fundamental principles for the exercise of BDSM require that it be performed by mature and responsible partners, of their own volition, and in a safe way. Since the 1990s, these basic principles have been condensed into the motto "safe, sane and consensual", also abbreviated as SSC, which means everything is based on safe, sane and consenting behavior of all involved parties. This mutual consent makes a clear legal and ethical distinction between BDSM and crimes such as sexual assault or domestic violence."
My "two-list" idea is really just a compromise. I think that in reality, 8mm (and Salo, and other movies of that variety) belongs here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_films not here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdsm
P/s have you ever SEEN Salo? I have. I know a lot of people have fought for it be available due to its "artistic merit", but I will never watch it again. It makes 8mm look like a Disney film, and that's not much of an exaggeration.
Thank you, ElizaBarrington ( talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't support two lists of movies but instead qualify the ones that are consensual as such ans explain that historically BDSM has been exploited and give a few examples of notable ones that have articles already. Benjiboi 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Unimaginative Username made a good point. I suggest we stay with one list. If any of the titles there isn't fitting we should discuss it here as done above with Salo.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 12:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Separate section for accessories/tools used looks a good option. Builtrain ( talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(outdent). Nemissimo, your goals and intent are admirable but know that reasonable discourse and article history don't have as much meaning for all. As a suggestion you may want to start a new talk section just on article structure outlining the article structure and possibly drilling down in major subsections to build a documented consensus as to is this the best structure for now. I personally have no interest in the article history in Germany, it's simply a different culture and way of doing things although I'm sure a lot of it was solid. I could be wrong on this but i think building a consensus here would help ensure that any structural issues are addressed and that the article integrity would be strengthened in the long run. An idea to help the process, are there any FA articles that deal with similar "hobbies" that might be useful for comparison with their own equipment, cultures, etc.? Benjiboi 17:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone an idea why the articles size seems to have increased dramaticaly from about 77K to 84K while only minor edits and reverted structural changes have taken place? That's really strange and gives a wrong impression. Never realized an effect like this before...-- Nemissimo ( talk) 10:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 09:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It has been suggested to discuss the article's structure in order to build a strong documented consensus on it. Background info: From my point of view the current structure is quite far developed, It has been discussed very extensively in other language versions of Wikipedia and is used in the featured Spanish and German articles. Since I'm aware that this is :en and most editors would find it difficult to retrace the archives there, I believe it is a good idea to discuss it again.
General concept:
The basic idea behind the article's structure is to provide a general condensed overview on the relevant aspects as a "main article" based on subsidiarity were possible. It aims at structuring the complexity of the overall topic into clear thematic segments, describing the most important facets of the topic while establishing a connection between them. At the same time the segments wikilink into "subarticles" related to the topic, which can be further expanded and deepened without "over expanding" the main article.
The structure allows it to integrate further relevant content without any need to redesign it from the ground. Therefor it is totally easy and uncomplex eg. to adapt it even further to national aspects (US, UK, Japan, Brazil or whatsoever) or to integrate possible new relevant aspects without endangering the article's overall structural integrity.
From my point of view this structure offers a good base to bring clarity not only to the topic itself, but also to the field of articles surrounding it. --
Nemissimo (
talk)
10:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Outdent. Let's only use other language versions as a guide to what is possible and stay focussed on if there is anything that needs to be addressed here, after all we are discussing changes to this article not those and already numerous changes have changed what you would find on each of those other articles. Please consider first that this is the current main section line-up:
Does it make sense, is it a good read and flow for our average reader and would our friends who assess Featured articles agree that this is the best order. If not what should be moved, renamed, merged or otherwise changed and why? Please try to be brief and remain dispassionate to our goal of writing the best article possible. Benjiboi 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An automated review suggested to check the article to be consistent with either American or British spelling. Since I'm no native speaker it would be great if anybody else could do this check. -- Nemissimo ( talk) 10:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there an applicable infobox for this article? I'm not really sure if a LGBT and Queer studies or Sexual orientation infobox would be the right one. -- Nemissimo ( talk) 10:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I felt a further explanation of changes was necessary:
I substituted "power exchange" and "fetish" for the narrower "leather sex" as alternative names for BDSM. While it's true that leather may play an important rôle in BDSM, it's not essential and some participants 'play' with leather, latex, and so on without other BDSM elements. Indeed, leather is often associated with aspects of gay sex, hence the term "leather boys". Further, under Symbols, the article refers to leather as a subculture, which is a more accurate description.
Note: The SSC guidelines have been promoted since the 1980s, if not long before. For more than four decades, the University of Washington in Seattle has promoted seminars which included these rules, although SSC and RACK acronyms are undoubtedly more recent. I don't remember for certain, but Janet Hardy may have given seminars herself in the late 1980s.
-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 12:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned about the following sentence: "Failure to honor a safeword is considered the most serious misconduct that can take place in BDSM and is a crime." (Last sentence in Fundamentals just above Safety.) I don't have access to the Wiseman SM 101 book, but if we grant that the sentence exists in the text, we still have a problem whether or not the statement is factual. Where in the criminal code does this exist? If we are to believe that somewhere in law such a codification of BDSM is written, where is it?
I believe this sentence should either be struck entirely or proved with further references.
-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 12:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence in SM 101 is "Failure to honor a safeword is a crime". This is an indirect quotation. Beside this source it is also clearly common sense. Ignoring a safeword automatically equals ignoring the Bottom's explicitly withdrawn consent. Without consent practically all BDSM practices are illegal (e.g. illegal restraint, insult or battery). -- Nemissimo ( talk) 17:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Part of the article now reads,
Contracts that are contra bonos mores (contrary to public morals) are generally illegal, and such contracts can even be constitutionally prohibited. In Europe, such agreements may be contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which grants a general freedom from "unhuman or degrading treatment". This right had been held to be absolute and no limitations or derogations are permitted by the Convention.
Does this strike anyone else as a legal fallacy or misunderstanding? There is a huge difference between a law and a right. I.e., it is illegal to break a law; it is not illegal to not exercise a right. The absolute freedom of speech does not make it criminal to put tape over someone's mouth if that person doesn't mind. Heck, if rights were enforced like that, we'd have half the adult population of the U.S. in jail for not voting. 66.251.26.61 09:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The "dress codes" mentioned under Parties and Clubs is spurious at best and may be someone's view of what they might wish to occur rather than what does occur. I believe the sentences related to dress code should either be deleted entirely (since fetish wear is discussed elsewhere), or at least redefined as 'suggestions'.
From Miami to Seattle, invitees are generally welcome no matter what they wear. The 'culture' in some ways is geared toward breaking rules, rather than imposing new rules. The only dress code I've ever encountered restricted nudity in public clubs, otherwise, invitees were welcome to wear costume or street clothes as they saw fit. A quick check with clubs in Columbus, Ohio and Edmonton, Alberta seemed to show a tolerance: they all welcome fetish wear but in no way require it. Further, the dress code assertion contains no references, and for a statement this broad, more than one reference should be required.
-- UnicornTapestry ( talk) 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The article describes the situation in most European countries, especially Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Maybe it would be an good idea to add one or two sentences making clear that customs in the US&UK (?) do or may differ. I think this article offers a great chance to include international differences in BDSM cultures and its public perception in comparison. BDSM isn't taking place in the US only and especially a UK view would be very interesting. Legal status is a very obvious subject to this opportunity. Since I'm no lawyer I was not able to translate the far more advanced de:Legal status with a detailed description on the legal situation in four countries.-- Nemissimo ( talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In progress, in multiple sessions over the next few days. (Was "sessions" a poor choice of words here?) Unimaginative Username 04:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The "Prejudices" section has no references at all, including for such assertions as "There is no clear correlation between the position in everyday life and BDSM preferences." This smacks (so to speak) of OR.
This article may need substantial revision, including substantial deletions, if sources cannot be found for many areas. I'll take a hiatus in copy-editing for a few days and watch this page. Also, feel free to message my talk page. Regards, Unimaginative Username 04:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"Cite everything. In line citations are one of the basic FA criteria. The rule is one citation for each paragraph. My advice? One citation for each sentence! In this way you'll avoid these annoying [citation needed], you'll impress and you'll convince everybody about the high level of your research. Especially assertions and assessment should be definitely cited."
Of course BDSM is an abbreviation, the question is, is it a acronym or a initialism? Quote from Acronym and initialism:
Initialism originally described abbreviations formed from initials, without reference to pronunciation. During the mid-20th century, when such abbreviations became increasingly common, the word acronym was coined for abbreviations pronounced as words, such as NATO and AIDS. Of the names, acronym is the most frequently used and known; many use it to describe any abbreviation formed from initial letters. Others differentiate between the two terms, restricting acronym to pronounceable words formed from the initial letters of the constituent words, and using initialism or alphabetism for abbreviations pronounced as the names of the individual letters.
Since I'm no native speaker I'm asking for your opinion on this. I would use the term acronym, but if initialism is more common or correct... it's fine with me. So what do you think? -- Nemissimo ( talk) 21:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
While I often find myself the defender of correctness, I must favor "acronym". Never that I can remember have I heard someone use initialism that way, casually or formally, and I tend to hang around educated and rather literate people. Here is Oxford's take on it:
These are consistent with the information already provided, but I don't think they preclude the use of "acronym". 66.251.26.61 09:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It is necessary to be able to identify a bottom's psychological crash...
Your friendly copy-editor here. It's apparent that "crash" as used here has a meaning different from everyday usage (automobile crash, stock market crash), so a brief definition of the specialized meaning should be provided (in parentheses).
Unimaginative Username
02:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Dossie Easton, Janet W. Hardy: The New Topping Book. Page 111-112, Greenery Press (CA) 2002, ISBN 1-890159-36-0:
"Emotional Glitches In our experience, by far the most common scene mishap is an unforseen emotional reaction the part of a participant -panic, anger, regression or other intense emotions. Freak-outs happen for a variety of reasons: flashbacks to burried memories of abuse or trauma; one or another partner "forgetting" that the scene is supposed to be playful and consensual, and getting the role and reality confused; real world sneaking into scene space: the possibilities are manifold."
Arne Hoffmann: Das Lexikon des Sadomasochismus, Page 10, Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf 2000, ISBN 3-896-022-903(German). (Translation Quick&Dirty):
"("Absturz")-> Sadomasochistic scene which has to be canceled. This commonly happens when one of both partners has crossed his mental(?)-emotional limits. Primarily this happens on the side of Bottoms, but Tops can be asked too much as well so that the situation can slips out of his control and a continuing of the scene becomes impossible."
Jay Wiseman: SM 101: A Realistic Introduction, Pages 316, ISBN 0963976389:
"Loss of emotional balance("freakouts")- Loss of emotional balance (freaking out) due to sensory or emotional overload is the most common SM emergency. This is usually due to failure to follow basic safety procedures (But not always. Sometimes SM play unexpectedly touches an unknown emotional hot spot. Repressed memories sometimes get triggered, phobias get tweaked and so forth)... Submissives experience most freakouts, but dominants may also experience them."
I myself would prefer the term "freakout" with a few words of explanation. If my memory isn't leading me into a false direction the term "crash" was used in the old version.-- Nemissimo 10:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Sadomasochism" is a portmanteau of "sadism" and "masochism"; as the link indicates, these are different. This section presently appears to refer only to sadism, not to masochism. A detailed discussion isn't needed, since there is a link, but the differentiation should be made. (assume readers are not familiar with the article's subjects) Unimaginative Username 03:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Discipline incorporates sadomasochistic aspects. But there is no definition of what discipline is or which aspects it incorporates. (Target = readers with zero knowledge.) Unimaginative Username 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion:
Discipline
The term discipline describes the use of rules and punishment to control overt behavior in BDSM. Punishment can be pain caused physically (such as caning), humiliation caused psychologically (such as a public flagellation) or loss of freedom caused physically (eg. chaining the Bottom to the foot of a bed). Another aspect is the structured training of the Bottom. A contraction/affiliation (?) with practices from the field of Bondage can occur, but is not necessarily mandatory. A differentiation between Bondage and Discipline is sometimes difficult.
Guess, this should be sufficient. -- Nemissimo 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a sentence about the use of "top/bottom" in the fundamentals section to ascertain the use of the terms top/bottom and find a way to make the further application coherent for the entire text. I hope this helps zero-knowledge readers but I'm not sure if this is okay with the friendly copy-editor ;-), it may be a very European way to solve the problem -- Ivy ( talk) 01:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the BDSM term for "Excellent"? Answers the above issue perfectly. I moved your comment to be with the original post of the issue -- hope you don't mind. I should have subdivided these in the first place, before the threads got involved. Good job. Done
Unimaginative Username (
talk)
06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
the expression is used in usual emancipated relationships... It's not clear what is meant by "usual emancipated relationships", especially since one definition of "emancipated" is: "freed, as from slavery or bondage". This article is rather about the opposite :) Let me know what the article is trying to say here and I'll help revise the sentence. Unimaginative Username 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... well... don't want to seem like the copy-editor is re-writing the article to suit personal preference, but we are supposed to be the users with the word skills, so I guess I'll take a whack at it (so to speak):
Is this accurate? Fair? Representative? Be as free with your commentary as your c/e has been! Unimaginative Username ( talk) 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The Bottom is frequently the partner who specifies the basic conditions of the session and gives instructions directly or indirectly in the apron. What is meant by "apron" here? Everyone involved in BDSM must wear an apron? -- probably not. Help with the intent, please. Unimaginative Username 05:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Changed to "... gives instructions, directly or indirectly, in the prelude to the session ..." Objections? Agreement? Unimaginative Username ( talk) 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be so picky. However, the FA reviewers are even more critical (notoriously so), so forewarned is forearmed. :) Unimaginative Username 03:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Youre absolutly right that's an example of a pretty userunfriendly layout. I added a wikilink to female dominance above and will try to make it more clear. Basicly there are no "writen rules" how a Bottom has to adress his or her Top. This is allways decided within the relationship. The "black link" given above leads to a diagram describing the relation of different understandings of of roletyp within BDSM. All BDSM interaktion take place between a Top and a Bottom (the general, neutral terms, only describing who is active and who is passive), Dom/Sub describes a Domination and submission (BDSM) relationship, Master(Mistress)/Slave is very often used in Total Power Exchange. At the end couples decide for themself what kind of picture of their relationship's nature they want to shape and use the according terms. Overlays of these rolemodells can occur, however. Professionals and their costumers do usualy decide to use Master(Mistress)/Slave since this is the most "basic"/"reduced"(?) concept, enhancing the costumers mindset during the scene. I hope the following explanations from Wipipedia make it clearer:
Furthermore, Tops in a D/s context are called Doms (short for "dominants") and bottoms in D/s are subs (short for "submissive"). It's very important to remember that not all tops are doms, and not all bottoms are subs (i.e. not everyone into some parts of BDSM is into the D/s part.).
Likewise, Tops in a M/s context are called Masters and their bottoms are slaves. Although a lot of doms and subs enjoy using the terms "Master" or "slave", it should be realised that just as not all tops are Doms not all Doms are Masters, and just as not all bottoms are subs not all subs are slaves (i.e. not everyone into some parts of BDSM is into the M/s part.) The diagram should help make this clearer.
Not only are not all bottoms subs but a bottom is not necessarily submissive. At one end of the continuum is a submissive who enjoys taking orders from a dominant but does not receive any physical stimulation. At the other is a bottom who enjoys the intense physical and psychological stimulation but does not submit to the person delivering them.
I hope this helps-- Nemissimo ( talk) 11:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"Today the BDSM culture exists in most western countries." Most of this section -- and indeed, much of the article -- lacks the citations to reliable sources that are expected in WP. However, a categorical assertion like this one cannot remain without support. Guidelines: WP:V and WP:PROVEIT. If a source other than personal knowledge is not available (within a few days), it needs to be removed. (Also, does the culture exist in Eastern countries? If not, why the difference?) Unimaginative Username 04:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The list of cities with large BDSM cultures appears to be merely a list of the largest cities in Canada, the US, and Europe. Are the concentrations of BDSM-ers in these cities disproportionately large, and are there studies or reputable surveys to support this? Unimaginative Username 04:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
"The documentation of the existence of the BDSM culture in some countries is impeded by laws prohibiting such activity and/or by official censorship of the expression of such ideas." (Here, you cite specific countries and the evidence. For example, one post above mentioned Arab countries. If you have an article or source about someone in such a country being arrested or punished for BDSM participation, cite it. If you have sources of such laws prohibiting it, cite them.) "Evidence for the widespread existence of BDSM culture, in such countries and in many others around the world, includes online communities and dating sites devoted to BDSM practitioners. For example, the BDSM dating site (cite collarme) has participants from (go count the number of countries there, you lazy girl) and (easier count) continents."
This article now references "Silver Moon Books and successor Bdsmbooks.com"
I'm not positive "successor" is the correct term. I fear someone (Bdsmbooks.com?) might be trying to pull something here. "Silver Moon" seems to still be publishing and has titles listed as "coming soon" on http://www.adultbookshops.com/index.html
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Moon_Books seems to say bdsmbooks.com is a new company founded by an editor who used to work at Silver Moon.
Seems fishy to me that the word "sucessor" is being used here on the BDSM page. Feels like maybe someone is striking off on their own and trying to bury the former emplyoer perhaps?
For what it's worth, I'm a fan of erotic fiction, and this is the first I've heard of bdsmbooks.com. Silver Moon is an established, respected company. For what else it's worth, Silver Moon's website looks and feels really pro and bdsmbooks.com looks not unlike a 1996 AOL home page. (I'm also posting some of this on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Moon_Books page as argument to oppose deletion that is being called for there.) ElizaBarrington ( talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Unimaginative Username (great name, by the way)-- Cool. Good call, IMHO.
Regarding "As to whether to have the link to bdsmbooks.com..." I'd vote no. The books don't really seem like literature, they read (from the excerpts on the site) like quickly churned pulp. And someone there seems to be spamming here (and on the Silver Moon Wikipedia page, if anyone wants to take a look at that.) And BDSMbooks.com only sells books in eBook form, unlike silvermoon, which also publishes print books, and has for a long time. The eBook "cover" photos for BDSMbooks.com look like they're stock photos taken from other websites. I even recognized a few from elsewhere.
FWIW: several of the stories on bdsmbooks.com seem to involve non-consensual and violent sex with characters as young as 12 years old. That fucking squicks me out, and I don't really want to help someone spam stuff like that on a Wikipedia page dedicated to safe, sane and consensual BDSM, even if it's "just fiction." ElizaBarrington ( talk) 09:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It is wonderful to see so much improvement and discussion for improvement in this article. I think that the editors here now have a good idea of what reviewers expect to see in a Featured Article or Good Article. Here is my humble suggestion:
Fair enough? Good luck to all, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 06:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking the article off the list at the League of Copy-Editors Request page for now. Unfortunately, the prescribed way to do that is to mark "copy-edit denied". Please, don't anyone take offense -- the progress is substantial, it will surely continue, and I'm looking forward to see what the editors here have accomplished when they're ready to request the copy-edit again. Regards to all, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 04:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Steve:
on the subject of age: look at http://www.bdsmbooks.com/Extracts/es08.htm search the terms: "twelve year old who" and "Sixteen. Last week sometime. The Bedford orphanage." ElizaBarrington ( talk) 08:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
in reading over the article i noticed that i couldnt find a link to the List of BDSM organizations page, perhaps there is a reason behind this i'm not aware of? but it caught me as rather odd. it also struck me as rather strange how small the list was. i know there are not a plethora of organizations, but it seemed rather limited and wondered also if anyone had the knowledge to expand it a bit? it also leaves clubs and conventions to float about in space for the time being since neither had pages i could find. i'm rather new at this wiki thing (and the BDSM thing at that), so i don't know how much use i'm being as much more than an observer. hope this helps even the littlest bit? -sparrow Sparrows.heart ( talk) 06:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope that this useful information. ISD ( talk) 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that this article is dificient without a discussion of "hard and soft limits" and "aftercare." While it talks about "contracts" and "safewords," the "limits" issue is too central to be ignored. The whole issue of "aftercare" is too often neglected, and "safe, sane, and consensual" is difficient without it. - Lisbeth k24 ( talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the untranslated German text in the section on Germany? If someone puts it back in, I would continue to work on translating it. And what happened to the entire section on the legal status in Austria? Is Austria somehow no longer important?-- Bhuck ( talk) 10:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The article lists North American and European cities with large BDSM scenes. The lists are quite similar to lists of large North American and European cities, and therefore not of very much use. Instead, it would be better to say that large cities tend to have a concentration of venues for BDSM and discuss why this might be (general sort of concentration-of-diaspora issues that apply to gay bars, Jewish synagogues, Green party voters or whatever). If statistics about higher per-capita BDSM incidence are available (number of BDSM institutions per 100,000 population, for example), this would also be more informative than just listing the largest cities.-- Bhuck ( talk) 10:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before (probably should have checked), but this article reads very much like a polemic essay rather than an objective article that minimizes bias. It really seems if it were put together by a PR rep for the BDSM 'community'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.102.165 ( talk) 12:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Chastity belts should be included or at least mentioned within BDSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChastityandCompany ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are there only pictures of women tied up on this page? Where are all the pictures of tied-up men? Supriya 21:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"Why are there only pictures of women tied up on this page? Where are all the pictures of tied-up men?"
i agree there is an inordinate amount of women bound in these photos in comparison of those of bound men —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icevixen17 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
External link 38, "Worldwide Club and Munch Directory" to www.worldwidebdsm.com appears to be dead.
I will check it again in a few days and unless anyone has a better idea I will change it to link to another munch directory site, www.munchcentral.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alien Conspiracy ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the new topic I have added today, this is my first time posting on here, and I can see there are a couple of mistakes already but I will edit it again. I thought subspace needed to be discussed as it is a very important thing in bdsm. I also feel top space should be discussed, however having not experienced it I do not feel it is something I could disucss. I couldn't see anything on subspace under bdsm at all so thought it would be appropritate to write something about the submissive persons state of mind.
Thanks
Emily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.240.66 ( talk) 09:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok thank you for the information, I have a book called rafical ecstasy, as this discusses sub space in some areas I will maybe try and find another book too. Thank you. Emily —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.80.240.66 (
talk)
08:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What was wrong with the tone? Solokhabar ( talk) 17:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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; [11] [12] etc.). AnonMoos ( talk) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't really want to keep this page on my watchlist, but it seems that every time I stop by, the article discussion of the triskelion is rather problematic... AnonMoos ( talk) 09:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
1."is there any correlation with people who were sexually abused as children who grow up to be into BDSM??"
-No, but for thanks for the good laugh.
2."why is there not more on the psychology behind BDSM??"
-No one has any idea, that's why.
I do agree there should be more of an expansion, but the only way to expand I can think of is ways in which practitioners increase feelings of humiliation, objectification, submission, and dominance, as further explaining the "why" the enjoy these feelings won't really lead anywhere.
Wikiposter0123 (
talk)
20:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikiposter0123 ( talk) 04:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The article stated that Larry Townsend's *The Leatherman's Handbook* described "The Old Guard." However, his description of leather/BDSM culture is almost completely at odds with descriptions of "Old Guard" I've read. For example, the OG is usually described as being intolerant of switching. Townsend explicitly states that "leathermen" (his term) were switches more often than not and provides examples and details to back up the claim. Likewise, the OG culture is usually described as tightly knit and hierarchical, with successive ranks and commensurate privileges. Townsend, however, describes a loose community in which everyone is a free agent and on roughly equal social footing. I just don't see how anyone can read Townsend's book as a description of The Old Guard.
I've removed the reference to the Old Guard. If someone wants to put in a new one, I just ask that they don't use *The Leatherman's Handbook* as a reference to support their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay201 ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding actual experience with practitioners of BDSM, I'd say the motives are more multi-factorial (and not all are enigmatically psychological.)
For example, I once enquired a Female Submissive as to why she enjoyed being dominated by me. She delineated that it was simply due to the fact she had always "been in control" throughout her life, therefore BDSM allowed her to periodically inhabit an outlet in which she didn’t “have to make the decisions”.
A brief conclusion, but still (I think) intriguing none the less.
In regards to Gummy, I always tend to be angered by the correlation of “psychology” and “BDSM“, simply because I believe it's often perpetrated out of a reactionary fear or conjectured misunderstanding towards the practice; pathologization.
It’s disheartening when practitioners are regarded as mentally sick etc. as it in fact takes great mental stability/trust to engage in acts of regulated BDSM. The psychology is interesting, but most practitioners I’ve met are imaginative and/or intelligent people, who simply admire more creativity in stimulation; sexual or otherwise. User:LLLookAtYouHacker ( talk) 11:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.198.128 ( talk)
I would like to suggest a new link for the bottom of the BDSM page external links area.
http://www.fortheloveofkink.com
It is a growing site with new articles on BDSM added all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortheloveofkink ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)