Talk:BDSM/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality

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)

KinxtonTown?

This is not a representative site.

CastleRealm?

• I think that CastleRealm would be a good link to add to the External Links section at the end. It has a lot of material written by people who've lived the lifestyle and helps clear up a lot of the confusion. JuJube 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated Version online

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)

One thing desperately missing is references. The article is roughly 77K long, but only has 37 citations. I've marked the "Fundamentals" section particularly because, as it stands, it reads like original research. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Which information in this chapter has to be substantiated with further sources from your point of view?? --Nemissimo (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Potentially, this article has the content, length, and breadth to be a featured article, but Satyr is right. It needs references. Good Article criteria states it's necessary to have at least one reference per paragraph, although the quality of your references is much more important that how many you have. Any point in the article where you state that people who are into BDSM think, agree, or practice something, it should be cited. When a term is defined, it should be cited. If there are controversies about BDSM, describe them and cite them. For an article this long, I wouldn't be surprised if you had over 100 references. You can check the full set of Good article criteria here. If you are an enthusiast, it may seem like a chore, but you're still doing something here on a topic you're interested in. A labor of love, so to speak... --Moni3 (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the same issue while copy-editing and included it in a Talk section with other comments. Unimaginative Username 04:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

The I have removed the following images from the article:

• 
  Bondage mittens used to immobilize a bottoms' hands.
• 
  Adjustable spreaderbar with leather bands used to immobilize a bottom's arms or legs.
• Inflatable gags are adjustable for individual adaptation.
  Inflatable gags are adjustable for individual adaptation.
• 
  Wooden gag held in place with steel rings and leather strap.
• 
  Spankingbench
• 
  Adjustable Nipple clamps on a chain.
• 
  Floggers come in a variety of sizes and colors
• 
  An erotic electrostimulation device used for direct nerve stimulation.

I put them here in chase someone else finds them helpful for the article.--Nemissimo (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought they were all helpful, perhaps re-add in gallery fashion as you have here with short explanation of each? Why removed? Benjiboi 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to reduce the amount of images (User_talk:Nemissimo#BDSM_2). Actually I found them helpful too and do feel a little bad about it.--Nemissimo (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well both that discussion and my comment above match to a degree - create or modify a section discussing BDSM equipment displaying photos in a gallery format which reduces the size and limits content to description mode of image. you can do pretty much anything in description including references and wikilinks. Benjiboi 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking through it there are another dozen or so that could flush out the gallery altogether and the remaining images could be re-appropriated as need (old photos/illustration to history, etc. Stepping through FA guidelines for photos might be the best place to start as that seems the end goal. Benjiboi 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is some seasoned FA advice regarding images:

• (a) Try not to overwhelm the text with "too many" pictures—one image or infographic every 250 words is a good guideline. Try to space images out throughout the article and keep pictures from bumping into each other.
• (b) Images aren't a requirement for any Featured Article, but asking for specific parts of articles which would benefit from having an image to be more illustrated is a valid objection. Having at least a few images for any FA is a good idea, and having about one image per screen is also valuable from an aesthetic perspective, drawing more readers into taking the time to read the article.
• (c) Look at the page on different platforms and browsers to catch things other users might see that you aren't picking up.
• (d) Check other related articles and see what they do, or investigate the standards of an umbrella WikiProject for other ideas on how to visually present the material.

Hope this helps! Benjiboi 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

German Sources

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)

Are the German sources written in English? If not, English-language sources are preferable; one purpose of sources is that interested readers can consult the source directly. Unimaginative Username 04:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, I have added German sources whenever I had no English-language ones at hand. I believe it is better to give a solid reference first, if according English-language can be found later they can be added over time.--Nemissimo (talk) 12:19, 5 December 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)

Deletion of article Vacuum bed

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)

you might ask for help at LGBT to userfy it to your user pages and then add a bit to make it more comprehensive, etc. before reposting it. Benjiboi 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile putting any text you have on Vacuum beds on the Wipipedia, the specialist BDSM wiki. They have an article Wipipedia:Vacuum bed that would benefit from expansion and as a BDSM encyclopedia, do not have policies or people who will delete informative text. --Interesdom (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for additional podcasts

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:

• Ropecast

D/s ropework show http://rope.podshow.com/

---

• Diary of an S and M Romance

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".

---

• Polyamory Weekly

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/

---

• Submissive Ophelia podcast

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.

---

• Sex Is Fun podcast

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.

---

• BDSM Talk

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)

Thanks for the hint. I deleted Kinky Sex Radio and added Diary of an S and M Romance & Submissive Ophelia podcast.

From my point of view the number of podcasts should be clearly limited to only a few "illustrating" the topic. Future changes should be discussed first and further additions handled as restrictively as possible. --Nemissimo (talk) 22:16, 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)

• Links to persons or companies selling goods or services in any WP article are usually regarded as spam links and deleted. Guidelines are at WP:SPAM and Links to be avoided. Unimaginative Username 04:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If you intend to delete some of the linked pages it is OK with me. From my point of view it makes sense to give an overview of the spectrum available, so if we can keep any it would be adding to the article's informational value.--Nemissimo (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One more movie?

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)

I see your point and have deleted "Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma" (always had a ambivalent feeling about it ;-) ).

The original list (de:BDSM#Film_und_Fernsehen) was much longer including many European movies (btw. Japanese cinema is clearly underrepresented in the list, but it centers around western movies). Hollywood mainstream seems to be handling the topic not as openly as European cinema, well... who had thought? ;-)

I suggested 8mm because it mixes the topics of snuff movies, bondage and rape in a way I personaly despise strongly. It has been repeatedly criticized by BDSM groups worldwide as discrediting and the movies initial screenings were accompanied by several demonstrations in the US (btw do you have some further sources on this?). The Movie is highly "sadophobic" from my point of view, but its success was partly based on its "BDSM aesthetics". I don't insist in integrating it, but it still feels noteworthy to me. --Nemissimo (talk) 11:29, 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)

Yep I have seen it and it definitely wasn't my cup of tea, I prefer The Image & Preaching to the Perverted. ;-)

At the moment I'm not to sure about a split list, it would expand the article's size even more and the wikilinked movie-articles should give readers a pretty good guess what the movies are about. At the same time the current structure provides a quick overview about the genre's development over the timeline. It might be interesting to see more opinions on this topic.--Nemissimo (talk) 00:04, 22 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)

I'm not familiar with the movies proposed on this "split list", but if BDSM is defined in this article as consensual, and these movies depict non-consensual violence, sexual or otherwise, then they are not relevant to this article. It sounds as though they would be more relevant to articles on forensic psychology, criminal psychopathology, etc. Unimaginative Username 04:41, 1 December 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)

Accessories

Separate section for accessories/tools used looks a good option. Builtrain (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well we can look into this... at the moment the related information is integrated into BDSM#Physical_Aspects. Since nearly every item is usable as a pervertible or fetish the potential list would be endless.

The basic concept of this article is to be an "main article" on the subject linking to other articles going into the last details.

This article has already about 80k. I believe this is acceptable in the current version since the topic is very complex, but expanding it further should be handled with extrem care. Experience shows, that in the past single edits integrating more items kept coming. I would suggest to link a separate list were further entries might be discussed without "endangering" or "overexpanding" the main article.--Nemissimo (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an offshoot article Tools of BDSM with the gallery photos from above and in the article would be smart? Benjiboi 16:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a category for this already: Category:BDSM equipment. Does that help? HalJor (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeees it does. ;-) Thanks.--Nemissimo (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as does List of BDSM equipment which certainly could use some expanding. Benjiboi 17:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe adding the category should do.--Nemissimo (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This should be enough, there is already a summary. I feel that contents from secton BDSM#Physical_Aspects to BDSM#Professional_Services needs some re-arrangement of sections. It looks little vague to me as of now. Though I currently have no alternate suggestions to make. Builtrain (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Please describe exactly what you mean. The logical structure of this article has been developed over nearly two years in very heated diskussions (see: de:Diskussion:BDSM-->"Archiv" (German)). I strongly suggest that possible changes should be handled very carefully and only if there are very good arguments why a alternative structure makes more sense. I have made the the experience, that most critizism related to the article can be solved by adding further reference or by expanding wikilinked articles.--Nemissimo (talk) 10:36, 22 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)

I see your point and since I'm aware that the majority of :en editors don't speak German I'm of course ready to discuss the article's structure. ;-) BTW. international standards on scientific methodology don't really vary so greatly that this article's structure would be "typically German". The structure used here is used in the featured Spanish es:BDSM as well. ;-). I will open a new talk section on article structure in order to build a strong documented consensus. Thanks for the hint.--Nemissimo (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that culture should make much difference. Also, which culture would be selected for the English version, if any? I have no reason to think that BDSM does not exist across the entire English-speaking world and the cultures of the Pacific and Africa are quite different than those of Europe or America. --Interesdom (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Size

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)

I think it's all due to mark-up language, it adds up. In looking at the history it seems to just creep up in size with no major leaps. If you're looking for potential spin-off articles both BDSM in Culture and Media and History could probably stand on their own. Benjiboi 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to get a text size indication, cut and paste the text to word, throw it in your sandbox and click the preview button. That will tell you how much the text itself is. The rest is images, and as Benji says, markup. Jeffpw (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.--Nemissimo (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

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)

But to note here, spanish and german FA versions of the article have different article structures. I agree that linking to "main article" is not necessary in this case, and the text content is sufficient and encyclopedic. But a little restructure looks necessary. Builtrain (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The German FA version has exactly the same structure as this one on :en.(Only "References" and "External links" were switched, since :de and :en have different guidelines on this)

The Spanish FA article basically uses the same concept, varying it in its sequence. It is giving less information on incidence and psychological categorization while putting a stronger emphasis on symbols, relationship models and movies without too detailed references (from my point of view these aspects should be described on :en more extensively in seperated wikilinked articles and only be outlined in the main article). The version on :es (featured 06 April 2007) was massively extended after the one on :de (featured 26 June 2006) was featured, uses most of it references and was featured a year later.

I would suggest that possible changes should be described in detail and it should exactly reasoned what advantages they might bring before any major structural change is implemented. --Nemissimo (talk) 11:57, 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:

1. Fundamentals
2. Safety
3. Aspects
4. Relationship Models
5. Scene: Subculture and Public
6. Psychology
7. History
8. Legal Status
9. Culture and Media

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)

• I'm quite aware of the current structure, since I've been working on this article for quite a while. ;-)
• "...already numerous changes have changed what you would find on each of those other articles." - well I can only speak for the German article -> it it still in the same structure it was when it passed FA on :de. The structure has proven to be quite stable and can be adapted for new content easily: Feedback on readability and structuring the information was overall very positive. But I think you are right - let's stay focused on the :en version.
• It might help, if you stated what should be changed from your point of view and why suggested changes might help to increase the article's quality and readability. I'm open to all changes that will help to improve the article's quality, but please understand that comprehensible arguments are a much easier way to discuss this article than open questions you expect me to answer. --Nemissimo (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is posed and open to all. There is no one answer or perfect article, we are simply on a path to improvement here. Also we are only going to hear from those who happen to come across this talk page and this discussion but hopefully will get some ideas and input. Most people will simply edit the article as they see fit. Benjiboi 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We have taken from :de, and we can detach it now. I dont understand how "Internet" and "leather pride" fall in history. Something here can happen in future also. Also i would recommend rename "fundamentals", as every subject has some fundamentals. Builtrain (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentals: I think the chapter and its content itself are clearly important in order to give a basic overview. Fundamentals, Safety, Aspects and Relationship Models provide the reader with the information what BDSM actually is, how and in which constellations it is practiced. Do you have a alternative suggestion for the headline?

Leather pride: Actually the content is "Leather subculture", not "leather pride" (The Pride Flag is just its symbol). The "Leather subculture" provided the background for the first massive public appearance of people interested in BDSM (see given sources) and with groups like Samois there was the first public dispute between sex-positive sadomasochists and the "Antiporn Movement", this is the historical base for the conflict between first and especially secound wave feminism and BDSM activists. At the same time the leather community is still a link between gay and BDSM subcultures (see Folsom). The "Leather subculture" also provided many important aspects of todays BDSM culture (Leather outfits, safewords, terms like "Tops"&"Bottoms", and especially the concept of certain roles). Therefore I consider this aspect to be an important part of BDSM history.

Internet: The internet was very relevant for the start of national and international networking. Before the rise of the net groups were mainly local, keeping a very low public profile (at least in Europe). At the beginning especially newsgroups provided general information and a tool for networking among individuals who had no contact to the subculture at all. The fundamental terms BDSM, SSC and RACK were coined there as well. If you talk to people who have been living in the subculture for the last 30 years, they always put high emphasis on the fact that the Internet changed it all. It provides possibilities (Munches, Kink Aware Professionals (KAP), the highly intensified networking on local, national and international levels (eg. ReviseF65) not thought possible in the 70s. At the same time the scene changed dramatically its character, it became more open and it size increased tremendously. I didn't include the last aspect since there are only very few written sources on it. --Nemissimo (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, commercial services dont fall under "relationship models". Of course they connected but that is not subset. As for WP:MOS, section titles need to be de-capitalised. Builtrain (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Done by User:Benjiboi.

Well, from my point of view, they can fall under "relationship models", especially if you consider that many visitors are not outed or live in a vanilla relationship and the contact with a pro is their only way to experience BDSM since they are not able or willing to get in contact with the subculture. If we decide to move the content, it should be integrated under Scene: subculture and public after the chapter Parties and clubs.--Nemissimo (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Call me a simpleton but my head is already spinning. It might be the wine, who knows. In any case per the suggestions some renaming and re-organizing do seem appropriate whether culturally or clarity there is some merit. Also this article should be split as is is way huge-ass and only likely to get bigger, my instinct is history should be spun off into it's own as well as equipment if there isn't one already. I have open multiple windows just to follow this thread so will return in a bit but wanted to offer an opinion. Benjiboi 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency AE/BE

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)

I'll give it a looksee, but usually those automated suggestions are more annoyances than anything else. Jeffpw (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, right. I never worked with this stuff before and most of it is just not applicable. AI still doesn't beat a good ol' human review. ;-) --Nemissimo (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A human is here to do it. Consistency of Br/Am is one of the tasks of copy-editors. Unimaginative Username 04:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

Explanation of Edits

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 noticed those edits and have no problem with them. I did, though, have to go through the article and redo the subject headers, since according to WP:MOS we are only supposed to capitalize the first word in a subject heading. Jeffpw (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

They are OK with me too.--Nemissimo (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Crime?

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)

Further to the point, if it stands in the Wiseman book, then it may be attributed there and ref'd as verifiable. Jeffpw (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that though - in some places SM is a crime whether or not someone safewords (e.g., the UK). For places where it's legal, has there been a case where the safeword has been upheld in court as indicating withdrawal of consent?

Perhaps it would be better to simply say "Failure to honor a safeword ... and means the bottom has explicitly revoked his or her consent ..."? That makes the point quite clear. Mdwh (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I hope the recent changes make it more clear. A small chapter on the UK has been added.--Nemissimo (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. As Nemissimo has noted here and in the article, the statement doesn't mean that there is a law about safewords; it means that failing to honor a safeword violates other specific laws, namely those against rape, assault, and unlawful imprisonment. If a man purposely drops a hair dryer into the tub where his wife is bathing (killing or injuring her), that is a crime, even though there is no law against putting hair dryers in bathtubs. 66.251.26.61 09:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Human rights?

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)

Dress Codes?

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)

let's not pull it now. This article was recently translated from the German version and some refs haven't as yet been included. I have added a fact tag, and if it is not ref'd in a week or so it can be deleted then. It is not controversial, so there is no urgency about the deletion. Jeffpw (talk) 12:53, 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)

• The latest referenced edit should solve the question.--Nemissimo (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

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)

:-D you should write a book: "Fun and play in copyediting". Jeffpw 18:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No reason it has to be completely dull! Oh, and congratulations - yes, having both sides of a controversy be mad at you is a good sign of NPOV. Unimaginative Username 02:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references versus continuing the copy-edit

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)

Maybe this position paper [1] referring relevant Canadian cases may help to show that the prejudices even are apparent in legislation. There are a few references edited by the feminist Alice Schwarzer, she tries to prove there is a way to overcome being a masochist, feel wrong and prefer a wrong lifestyle. --PoisendIvy (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to how a statement implying there is a lack of evidence can be called into question other than by evidence to the contrary. "There is no clear correlation between the position in everyday life and BDSM preferences" can stand as a statement (given that it is written by someone with evident knowledge of BDSM) unless there is sourced information to state otherwise. --Interesdom (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This might seem minor, but it's the wording. "There is no clear correlation" might imply that studies have been done and found a low, or zero, coefficient of correlation. If such exist, great. If not, then this editor would be content with "There is no documented evidence of any correlation...", assuming that you have made a good-faith search for such studies or surveys and found none. "someone with evident knowledge" - WP does not allow one's own knowledge to be a source. Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• PoisendIvy, I read that paper. It does look like a good citation. Readers who went to that source could decide that BDSM was being treated differently from other analogous activities (Boxing is "socially useful"? ehh.) That is all that I was saying here -- provide sources. Sorry that it drew Interesdom's displeasure, but it's a basic principle of WP. As for how frequently to cite, here is some advice from User:Yannismarou/Ten_rules_to_make_an_article_FA. This user has contributed to many Featured Articles and received a number of awards. It isn't official policy, but it's good advice.

"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."

• There was not one citation in the entire Prejudice section, five paragraphs long. Hence the suggestion to cite. Sorry if the comment sounded harsh, but if this article is to receive GA or FA status, it will have to comply with the same standards and pass the same reviews as articles on dinosaurs, the Battle of the Gebora, or any other article. Surely no one wants this article to be treated differently? Sincerely, Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That' absolutely understandable, I already had the idea of searching a cite for each sentence :-).It may also be helpful to cite and show the seriousness, because the subject is 'sometimes, maybe, a little bit' prejudiced - not cited, I just know ;-). I am searching the name of the guy who had problems in his job for being BDSM-practitioner, I just can't remember FBI, UN, some kind of public employee ? I would like to cite his story as a known case of prejudice. I really would appreciate if someone who remembers the name could post it. --PoisendIvy (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack McGeorge, he is mentioned in the article. (Btw. read :de on him, it's more comprehensive - I expanded it. ;-) )--Nemissimo (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thx - I forget his name 2 seconds after reading it, I had to look it up 3 or 4 times now, it's very helpful for progress in the article to have a memory like a sieve *grr --Ivy (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Done (at least for the prejudices) --Ivy (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

abbreviation, initialism or acronym?

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)

I actually went to the acronym article after seeing your summary. Thye give IBM as an example of acronym in the lead, and go on to say that some acronyms are used as words, while others are spelled out. I think acronym, as the more common word, should be used here. Jeffpw (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. "Acronym" is more common, but "initialism" is more correct. I prefer to differentiate the terms -- if the "word" can't be reasonably pronounced without just sounding out the letters (bee-dee-ess-em), it can't be an acronym. Continuing the paragraph you cited: "In the latter usage, examples of proper acronyms would be NATO (IPA: [ˈneɪtoʊ] or [ˈneɪtəu]) and radar ([ˈreɪdɑ(ɹ)]), while examples of initialisms would include FBI ([ɛf.biˈaɪ]) and HTML ([eɪtʃ.ti.ɛmˈɛl])." Nearly everyone pronounces "NATO" and "radar" as actual words, but I've never heard anyone do anything other than spell the words "FBI" and "HTML". "BDSM" is in the latter category. HalJor (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, IBM is not "an example of an acronym" in the lede -- IBM is listed along with NATO and radar as examples of acronyms and initialisms. The lede does not make the distinction. HalJor (talk) 22:26, 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:

• acronym ... a word formed from the initial letters of other words (e.g., radar, laser).

ORIGIN 1940s: from Greek akron 'end, tip' + onuma 'name,' on the pattern of homonym.

• initialism ... an abbreviation consisting of initial letters pronounced separately (e.g., CPU).

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)

Now let's look at the definition of word: "A word is a unit of language that carries meaning and consists of one or more morphemes which are linked more or less tightly together, and has a phonetical value." I would argue that "BDSM" does not strictly have "phonetical value" in the same way that the acronym examples do. Even your defintion of initialism states that it is the correct term for BDSM -- initial letters pronounced separately. HalJor 18:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So could we use initialism and wikilink it?--Nemissimo (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this problem solved ? (I don't even know what its really about ;-))--Ivy (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from the copy-editor

"Crash" should be defined

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)

Not trying to second guess the author, but I believe it refers to short term psychosis, which typically manifests itself as a reaction from shock or extreme stress. Jeffpw 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Being deeply into lexophilia, my take from later parts of the article was that it meant the endorphins wore off and the euphoria ended. Similar to crashing after a high from alcohol or stimulants. Just a guess, though -- would like to hear from the translator and/or experts. (Practitioners who are physicians or psychologists?) Unimaginative Username 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the aspect "crash" is quite complex. I've been looking for a exact definition in literature.

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)

"Freakout" is yet another colloquial (slang) term, even though perhaps more widely known. Need to find common English words to describe this. People are trying. Keep trying. If necessary, one day I might be able to digest everything here and try to suggest a wording. It looks like the editors here are well on the way to finding a good definition, though. Unimaginative Username (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible revision, incorporating the above: "crash, or the exceeding of the bottom's physical and/or psychological limitations or levels of comfort, resulting in the termination of the bottom's gratification from the session, the need to end the session, and possible adverse reactions including panic, anger, regression, or other intense and undesirable emotions. (quote source)" Could also add "freakouts" and a reference to the possibility of these happening to tops. Comments? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, since I already gave the sources above, I hope they are sufficient.--Nemissimo (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Could insert, "crash, also known as freakout..." etc. Is there a consensus on this language? If so, one of the editors here can revise the article accordingly, with the sources listed appropriately. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose another sentence instead of this one (in safety) "It is necessary to be able to identify a bottom's psychological "freakouts" in advance in order to avoid it. Such losses of emotional balance due to sensory or emotional overload are the most common SM emergency.[18] It is extremely important to follow his or her reactions empathetically and continue or stop accordingly."

My proposal: "A very common emergency occurring during sessions is the so called crash, also known as freak-out, a loss of emotional balance due to sensory or emotional overload. This can happen to any participant of a session, although it is more likely to happen on the bottom side. Results of a crash can be serious, e.g. panic, anger or regression, therefore it is extremely important to recognize the beginnings of a possible crash and to react accordingly and compassionate."

Would that be a compromise for the section "freaking crashing breakdowns" ? Btw... breakdown would maybe be the better term anyway ;-) --Ivy (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's great to have you here. The new proposal is excellent.--Nemissimo (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadomasochism section

"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)

• • • Nothing seems to have been done yet. Involved editors, please address this issue. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Changed to "The term Sadomasochism is composed of the to words sadism and masochism. In the context of consensual sexual activities sadism and masochism are not strictly accurate terms, there is a significant difference to the medical or psychological usage of both terms. Sadomasochism refers to the more physical side of BDSM, sadism describes the sexual pleasure in causing pain, degrading or humiliating upon another person. On the other hand the masochist enjoys being bound, spanked or suffering within a consensual scenario. Neither sadists nor masochists do enjoy causing or receiving pain in other situations e.g. accidental injury, medical procedures." I hope this is more differenced and still understandable.--Ivy (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the missing distinction. Will do an in-depth review at another time (see overall plan below), but made a few quick changes in punctuation, etc. However, since "Discipline" has its own sub-section a bit earlier, is it necessary to have a "discipline" paragraph in this section again? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Discipline

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)

You're absolutely right , there was a small section on this, I wonder were it has gone?? I will look into this during this week.--Nemissimo 10:44, 4 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)

If a Bottom enjoys the bondage, then bondage would hardly seem like discipline. Seems that there's some overlap, but the differentiation could be made. I'm already getting the sense of controlling behavior by punishing violations. Do you people realize that you have a great stop-smoking program there? :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

lol... believe me, "forcing" a Bottom to quitt for a few hours can be quite funny. ;-)

Well... bondage can be used within the frame of discipline, it also can be done without any connection to it... it totally depends on the circumstances... And there are Bottoms really enjoying to be disciplined or spanked, remember... some Bottoms are masochists... boundage itsself doesn't has to hurt at all if this is intended and done probably... I know several bondage bottoms enjoying the experience of immobilization und loss of control very much. --Nemissimo (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, instead of being critical, I'll try to be helpful. How about, "The term discipline describes the use of rules and punishment to control overt behavior in BDSM participants, and may include the structured training of the Bottom. Punishment for failure to comply can consist of pain caused physically (such as caning), humiliation caused psychologically (such as a public flagellation), or loss of freedom, enforced physically (e. g., chaining the Bottom to the foot of a bed). In any given situation, discipline might or might not include bondage, just as bondage might or might not involve discipline." Comment? and of course, please put your links and italics back in as appropriate. As always, any published sources about such practices enhance the article's credibility. Oh, and <kidding>public flagellation of smokers is a great idea :)</kidding> Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. --Nemissimo (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this cite: "Punishment - a mode of actual or fantasy discipline in which the Top corrects the bottom. Pushing limits - consensually expanding the boundaries of one's own or another's physical limitation..." Consensual Sadomasochism, P.71. I'm not sure, but I think this does describe part of the term discipline.--PoisendIvy (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good source. Can you provide author, publisher, date, edition, etc., as per Wp:cite#Full_references? Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I just had my lazy 5 minutes ;-), I'll add it as soon as possible --PoisendIvy (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, added a few others too --Ivy (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Physical aspects

Top/Bottom nomenclature

• The terms "Top" and "Bottom" are introduced without any explanation. Further reading shows the explanation under "role models", but best practice is to explain on first appearance any (unlinked) term that might not be familiar to all readers. I don't have a specific recommendation. Perhaps the "role model" section should be moved above this section, or perhaps other terms could be used here: The dominant partner does x,y,z to the submissive partner. The later section would then introduce Top and Bottom as terms for the dominant or submissive partner. Unimaginative Username 04:03, 1 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)

"Good girl"...Sometimes BDSM jargon is quite simple ;-) --Ivy (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good girl! Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Other issues in this section

• It is commonly considered that a pleasurable BDSM experience... Please consider WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL. Commonly considered by whom? How many? I understand that this topic might not have the same-sized body of authoritative references as other topics, and that much of what is available is a summation of personal experience of participants, or OR. However, to whatever extent there are published books, academic papers, etc., those references would add authority and credibility to such statements. Somewhat less desirable would be magazines, newsletters, etc., although these would have the POV of participants. In summary, please add citations to those sections that lack them wherever possible. Unimaginative Username 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this kind of hard to source with a specific single source. This statement is the obvious basic assertion in all books I ever laid hand on. The Top's competence is obviously necessary to prevent serious harm by practices potentially dangerous if done wrong. He is in constant need to see if he is still within the limits of the given consent.

The Bottom's physical and mental state at the time of the session is relevant because deficits can run a high risk of a "freakout" (see quotes given above). Up till now I have no single quote avaible, but the fact itself is obvios as soon as one give a glance into the given literature. At the moment I have no idea what to do about this sentence.--Nemissimo 12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest at least two issue-related books representative for the "relevance of the bottoms mental and physical state" AND the common understanding (in the SM-scene) of the responsibility a top has and the skills needed to enable a pleasurable experience for both. Would this help to solve the citation problem for this part of the text ? --PoisendIvy (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If the books meet the credibility criteria at WP:SOURCES, that would be excellent! The stronger the credentials of the authors, the better. Self-published books are regarded as more questionable. Would you like to list them here? Links to reviews of the books and/or information about the authors is also useful. This is what the article needs! Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest more "technical" books and would like to try do it without citing the all-time-BDSM-reference "Screw the Roses" maybe 'Consensual Sadomasochism-Talk about Safety', written by a psychologist (or therapist?) and a sexologist, both practioners [2], the second book that I would recommend is written by John Warren, Ph.D 'The Loving Dominant' [3]. Both books are easily available at amazon, the are enough reviews to get a first idea of the books. I hope this works and I hope I didn't mess up the links again :-) --PoisendIvy (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Now we're talking! Strange as it may seem, "sheepskins" (degrees) matter". People with the right letters after their names have more reliable-source credibility than people with years of experience in the actual field (rightly or wrongly). Books by accredited PhD's , M.Psych., accredited therapist (not an Internet diploma, but from a school generally recognized as a reputable academic institution) give much more substantial weight and distinguish an encyclopedia from a forum or blog. As per the comment under "Discipline", can you give full reference info as per Wp:cite#Full_references? This is going to be a Featured Article yet! (although I doubt that Raul is going to put it on the Main Page, for obvious reasons :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Done, added cites for the physical sensation of subspace, too. Hope they will be sufficient.--Ivy (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Play relations

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)

Well, I have to admit, this really is my mistake. ;-) I really had problems translating it. There are couples living an everyday life in which they are "equal" in terms of power, emancipaction, decicions... so to say "typical vanilla". ;-) From time to time they decide to life a different "style of social interaction", maybe for only a few hours or some days. Later they return to their standard everyday life pattern without any aspect of BDSM roles, being a couple without specific role system. Hope this makes it a little more transparent.--Nemissimo 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And... to complete Nemissimos explanation... in the European understanding of the phrase, it also (often) refers to couples living in a vanilla relationship and are just meeting occasionally with their play/scene partner without their vanilla partner knowing of their special addiction at all. I just can't find a concise phrase for it. :-( --PoisendIvy (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is very much what I intended to say. ;-) Thanks Ivy!--Nemissimo (talk) 20:29, 5 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):

"On the one hand, the expression may be used in more conventional relationships in which power is shared most of the time, but BDSM is occasionally part of, or foreplay to, sexual activities." ... etc.

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)

Great, this kind of free flow of information and creativeness is what we need in order to make thinks happen. I feel very positive on the cooperation on this article. It's real fun.

Let me try to describe the basic idea behind play relations in very simple words with an example: Let's say there is a couple "A"+"B" (with whatever kind of relationship)... maybe one of them decides that a third person ("C") might be interessting to play (BDSM activities) with. So "A"+"C" might start to meet each other an a regular base for play (which might or might not include intercourse). This play relation is limited to BDSM activities. Nothing more. Play relations are soly based on and often limited to BDSM activities. Two people decide, they whant to share such experiences together but don't get any more involved... See what I mean? ;-) --Nemissimo (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW... I love that A, B, C stuff, living BDSM and Polyamory is really great to learn the Alphabet... sorry I just had to say this ;-)

My suggestion: The term "play relation(ship)" is used as well, describing two different aspects: On the one hand .... polyamory.

On the other hand, the term may describe an extramarital affair which is based exclusively on the occasional realization of sexual BDSM-related fantasies, that can not be acted out in the primary relationship. There is no interest to enhance (?) the relationship any further. Again just trying --PoisendIvy (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, getting confused now. What about,

1. (Situation #1): A and B are a married straight couple. They enjoy vanilla sex with each other regularly. Occasionally, though, they "spice up their relationship" (as the saying goes) with some aspects of BDSM -- again, with each other. Is there a specific term for this type of relationship?

1. (Situation 2) Again, A and B are married, straight. However, A is interested in BDSM, but B has no interest. A sees C, strictly for BDSM play situations. OK, this is a "play relation". But what about B? Does it matter whether B says, "It's ok to do that, but keep your love and some loving (vanilla) for me"? If B does not know about C, then whatever the relationship between A and C, conventional morality still regards this as infidelity or "cheating" on A's part (even if there is not intercourse with C.) Does the BDSM community distinguish between the two types of situations here, and is this uniquely European, as PoisendIvy's post above implies? (I guess by the time the copy-edit is complete, I'll be an expert haha) Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Now it's going to get difficult...

#1 can be called a play relation, or if you talk to someone 'living' BDSM the term "they are just playing BDSM" (imagine a disapproving glance to that ;-)) may be used to emphasize the playful element

#2 I think that is not really a question of BDSM but of the relationship itself. If B doesn't want A to have a bit on the side, B won't really care if it's about SM or Sex or being gay or whatever. Others do fine with this solution, some even tend to Polyamory. The term is used in some anglophone european chatrooms, but I don't really know if it's a common expression worldwide (or at least in the US). But the (German-european)community does clearly distinguish between the both meanings of play relation. I'll ask some of my friends if there is an other expression that would solve the problem... and search a cite ;-) --PoisendIvy (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Super. The goal is to explain to zero-knowledge readers what each term commonly means, or, if there are differences in different areas of the world or whatever, to describe each of these. Editors here should come up with language on which there is a consensus, then yours truly can come back and copy-edit for grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. :) Glad to have stimulated thoughtful discussion on how to make this article a professional, impartial, encyclopedic piece of work. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Having talked to anglophone friends (GB and US) they suggest to differ the "English version" into a role playing relationship (erotic power exchange or relationship including sexual roleplaying) and SM-Swingers not building/wanting a relationship to their role play partner. As I'm not sure if this is understandable (I'm used to the german term) to zero-knowledge reader. I need some feedback :-) --Ivy (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand: In the Anglophone world, "play relations" (I would think "play relationship") can mean either a full-time relationship involving power exchange or role-play, or swingers who want no relationship with their partners other than the SM scenes? How does the German/European community differentiate between these two types? -- do they have two different terms? Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. Germans are used to use millions of words to describe things (just kidding - i love the wonderful and strange language). To be realistic there are marginal differences in the way the word "play" is used in this context. "They are just playing" may describe a twosome using BDSM techniques in their sex life "They are playing together" can refer to Swingers only meeting for scenes. No moral differentiation is made. The significant difference is only made between "living BDSM" - Total Power Exchange or deeply involved into lifestyle and "playing BDSM" describing the ones not completely into lifestyle or "only" using Erotic Power Exchange. I'll try to work out a sentence for the 0-knowledge-reader without going into linguistic details to far.--Ivy (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Apron?

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)

scenario, I would think. Jeffpw 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds logical. Nemissimo, help, please? Unimaginative Username 02:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Upps... bad translation, sorry. The German term "Vorfeld" describes the social contact, the formal or informal negotiations before the scene starts... should be "prefield " or "in the forefront of" I guess. --Nemissimo 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How about ... gives instructions directly or indirectly in advance? Scenario seems to be misleading, the scene itself could be the scenario (thinking of a role play e.g.) and the "negotiation time" for the bottom normally ends with the beginning of the scene --PoisendIvy (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be OK with me.--Nemissimo (talk) 20:27, 5 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)

Fine with me.--Nemissimo (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Professional services

Types of services offered

• "A professional dominatrix offers sexual services ... sexual intercourse between dominatrix and clients usually is out of the question." If sexual intercourse is out of the question, which "sexual services" are offered? (Oral? Manual? etc.) If no sexual activity is involved, then the phrase "sexual services" should be revised. Domination services? ... something that reflects accurately the nature of the service.

Well "sexual services" can include nearly every sexual activity leading to a customers' orgasm while not "breaking the roles". Manual can take place, I very strongly doubt oral for classic professional dominatrixes. Overall this field is not very well documented in literature, but in all discussions on munches and parties I had, as well in all interviews I read and saw, pros always strongly emphasized that sexual intercourse is out of the question, while they sometimes allow the Bottom to fullfill its needs otherwise. Prostitutes trying to make a buck in this field might handle it otherwise. But this is a different topic.--Nemissimo 11:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• "A professional dominatrix offers sexual services encompassing the range of BDSM..." The rest of the section makes it clear that professional submissives are a different category from dominatrices (it's pretty apparent from the terms anyway) so " encompassing the range of BDSM" is not accurate. Perhaps "encompassing the dominant range..." or "encompassing the range of domination aspects of BDSM..."? Help, please, in re-writing this accurately.

"Encompassing the range of domination aspects of BDSM..." sound very good.--Nemissimo 11:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Suggested revision to deal with both of the above points: "A professional dominatrix, often referred to within the culture as a "pro-domme", offers services encompassing the range of bondage, discipline, and domination in exchange for money. Many dominatrices do not see themselves as prostitutes, since sexual intercourse between dominatrix and client usually is out of the question. However, in some cases, the sexual gratification or climax of the client may be permitted by other means. ... " Comments? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Nemissimo (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any other support/oppose before the change is made? Unimaginative Username (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I love it --Ivy (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Terminology for professionals

• This section opens with the term "dominatrix" (linked), but goes on to say that this term "... is little used within the BDSM scene, and is usually used to refer to professional dominants ("pro-dommes")", raising the logical question of why the term opens the section if it is little-used within the culture itself. I'm going out on a limb with "A professional dominatrix, or "pro-domme"... little used within the non-professional BDSM scene... " Let me know if this is not an accurate representation.

The chapter is still kind of "Non English", meaning describing the usage of the terms in the German speaking countries. This short article on Wipipedia should give all background information needed.--Nemissimo 13:35, 4 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)

Sorry for the impreciseness happening in several chapters of this translation. The :de version is written on a level of language that is nearly scientific it was really hard to translate. ;-) I believe this "crosschecking" is a pretty good way to solve this. --Nemissimo 11:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Domme, Mistress, etc.

• "A more common name for a non-professional dominant woman is Domme, or perhaps Mistress, depending on the type of dominant they are." What is the distinction? What does each do or not do that is different from the other? Inquiring minds will want to know! Unimaginative Username 03:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Domme is a more general term for a female, noncommercial Top. Mistress is usually used in so called "Slave-Master" relationships (eg. 24/7 total power exchange) and in the field of female dominance. Maybe this graphic makes it a little more clear. --Nemissimo 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Pages on black backgrounds are very annoying to read! ... anyway, the word "Mistress" does not appear in the graphic. The links to Mistress and Domme did not make a difference clear. The remark above, "and in the field of female dominance" seems circular. Aren't Dommes also "in the field of female dominance"? Not trying to be difficult or dense here, but for the sake of all uninitiated readers, -- let's say, a visitor from Mars drops in and knows nothing of Earth customs. You have explained the basic nature of BDSM. How would you explain to this Martian the difference between "Domme" and "Mistress"? Is it that "Mistress" applies only in a 24/7 relationship. (e. g., one cannot have a Mistress for a session?) Trying to make this clear for any reader. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:05, 5 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)

Couldn't the Mistress/Master/Domme/slave-stuff be solved by taking it out of this paragraph and listed as an example for the top/bottom according to the individual understanding of Dommes/Masters/Subs... Nemissimo might have a look how the problem is solved in the German article 'Top (BDSM)' (Sorry, I still don't master the reference-stuff^^)... and btw imo there is no difference between a Domme, Goddess, Lady or Mistress, it's just how she favors to be entitled ;-) --PoisendIvy (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• If the definition of "Mistress" is "a woman who controls every aspect of a man's life 24/7", then how is it different from "wife"? Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mistresses only take some of your money. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Pro-Dommes take money, there are Pro-Dommes using Mistress XYZ as their pseudonym, but there are also private Dommes using the same title to emphasize the power exchange, the women you might be thinking of are so-called Money-Mistresses (financial fetish)... (the others you may refer to are women in general^^) . And there are dominant Women, Mistresses, Ladys, Dommes, Madames being a wife, but I do hope not all wives spank their husbands for forgetting to bring out the garbage ;-). Mistress resp. Master is just a common used title in the scene and describes a top or dominant.--PoisendIvy (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The "wife" remark was intended to be humorous. Sorry that it wasn't :)

It was... my husband is still giggling about that ;-) --PoisendIvy (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I ask whether your husband is top or bottom? ;-) Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked my husband about his self-assessment and he replied: "Living with a domme is hell anyway, it doesn't really matter if you call yourself top or bottom" He is overdoing a bit, he definitely is a dominant Top too ;-)--Ivy (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The non-facetious comment is that there appears to be not a clear consensus. Some editors are saying that Domme, Mistress, etc. are interchangeable terms, but the article made some distinction between them. A consensus needs to be reached on these terms. I understand that BDSM does not have the equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary, and that some terms might have different meaning to different participants or in different contexts, but whatever can be verified should be explained to the casual reader. Unimaginative Username (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is trying to refer to all parts of the scene. A dominant petplayer e.g. uses the term 'Owner', but they use 'Top' to describe their dominant position to other bdsm orientated people, a Mistress may be into a victorian lifestyle, but she would describe herself as a Top if someone on a munch doesn't understand her way of living. I'll try to find some reference for the history of the top/bottom word pair, I think at least this one can be cited.

Sorry, forgot the --PoisendIvy (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

References are great, but getting back to the original question: ""A more common name for a non-professional dominant woman is Domme, or perhaps Mistress, depending on the type of dominant they are." It seems that usages vary, so perhaps the best way is just to delete the last phrase (the one that implies some definite and distinct characteristics to each): ""A more common name for a non-professional dominant woman is Domme or Mistress." Comments? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest "A more common name for a non-professional dominant woman is Domme or Femdom". I think it would be easier to understand without using the 'Mistress-term', this _difficult_ word could easily show its meaning (if really relevant) being used in the original word pair with master (master/mistress). Just another try, but i think the Domme-or-Mistress-Phrase would work just as well :-) --PoisendIvy (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • As in the discussion of the term "Play Relations", involved editors here need to reach a consensus on how to define all of these terms for the zero-knowledge reader (resisting again the temptation to use the term "lay reader"). When the consensus on the language is achieved, edit the article accordingly (including sources), and your friendly copy-editor can be requested to proofread it. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have another try: "It is very unusual to use the term dominatrix within the non-profit sector of the BDSM culture, a non-professional dominant woman is referred to as Domme or Femdom. According to the mindset of power exchange Dommes often use titles as Mistress, Lady or Madame to emphasize the shift of power." I hope this helps to explain the way Dommes like to be entitled ;-) --Ivy (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The light bulb goes on! (I think). The confusing distinction was between how the culture refers to them versus how the submissive directly addresses them. Correct? Throw this one back at ya: "The term "dominatrix" is little-used within the non-professional BDSM scene. A non-professional dominant woman is more commonly referred to as a Domme or Femdom. Dommes may title themselves as Lady, Mistress, or Madame, and require their submissives to address them in this fashion, to emphasize the shift of power." Your turn :) Oh, and did you miss the response to your husband's giggling, or are you ignoring it? :) Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done ( just wanted to use this once ;-)) I added your phrase, that's exactly it. I didn't miss the question, I just waited to answer, it seemed confusing in the middle of the Mistress-Domme discussion ;-) --Ivy (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a marvelous feeling of power, isn't it? -- to have that green check-mark under your control, and to be able to bestow it or withhold it at will :) Yes, the other remark was off-topic, but now you make me very curious. None of my business, perhaps, but if you are a Domme and your husband also is a Dominant/Top -- it is possible for two Tops to be married or have a relationship? Like two positive terminals of a battery, it seems the full circuit isn't there. Does each exercise its power on other submissives? and how do you decide relations between you, toss a coin? Take turns? Not meaning to pry, and feel free not to answer. Just didn't expect to hear that both members of a couple would be on the same side of the BDSM coin. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Scene

"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)

Let's change it to "Today the BDSM culture exists in many western countries." (Btw. the interwikilinks are a good indicator.)

Even trying real hard I couldn't find any literature on BDSM in African or Arab regions (Guess why. ;-) ).

In Asia BDSM aspects seem to have been existing for ages (see BDSM#Origins->Kama Sutra, obvious in Pornography in Japan), due to cultural differences it doesn't seem to be a as controversial topic as in western countries. I never heard of decent non-asian literature on this, therefore the article is not describing this aspects.

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 list of cities was integrated from the older :en version. From my point of view its redundant. We should delete it.--Nemissimo 11:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Even trying real hard I couldn't find any literature on BDSM in African or Arab regions." My point exactly. And what about South America -- is it not part of the West? Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point. I even was told about parties in Prague, Budapest and Moscow... Do you have a suggestion how we could solve this topic?--Nemissimo (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That may not be very helpful... but don't forget Australia and New Zealand, Turkey is very carefully beginning to show interest in BDSM, there are some BDSM couples in Ghana, Namibia etc. Maybe the entire paragraph needs a new approach ? --PoisendIvy (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view the section probably will grow over time. As soon as it reaches a "critical mass" a short summary can be created and the comment Main article: XYZ be added, just as it's done in other sections of the article.--Nemissimo (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)--Nemissimo (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Say whatever you have the references to support. If you have links for BDSM cultures in "many Western countries", then that phrase is appropriate. If you have links for Austalasia and Africa, and evidence that it's commonly accepted in some Asian countries, then it almost sounds as though you could say "many countries around the world", with appropriate links to each country. If its mention is banned in some countries (Arab?), that might be of interest. Again, whatever is verifiable and sums up the situation for the reader. Very glad to see the many discussions taking place on this page and the many editors trying to improve it. Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I added one reference, but i would like to add one of the largest communities collarme [4], this may be a quite good way to see where the English speaking practitioners come from worldwide, but I'm not sure if this will be accepted as a reference. --Ivy (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be ok to use in support of some statement like, "BDSM online dating sites (or whatever the corresponding BDSM term is) like collarme (put in the refernce link) include users from ***more than XX number of countries***, on ***Y*** continents." if you get my drift. This would be a non-controversial, non-disputable statement. You are merely telling readers that a certain site has members from so many places. Readers can go to the site to verify, and they can draw their own conclusions as to the degree of worldwide occurrence of BDSM. Very fine. Incidentally, the brief look indicated that it is free to join there? Free sites also have the advantage of being less likely to be challenged as spam links then a pay site. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I added this sentence "It is commonly known in the BDSM culture that there are practitioners living on all continents, but there is no documented evidence for many countries (due to restrictive laws and censorship motivated by politics or religion) except their presence in online BDSM communities and dating sites (cite: via communities e.g. collarme [5])" Will this work and explain the difficult situation for some of the BDSM practitioners and the difficulty to prove their official existence?

Of course it is a free site and complying to the "Child Online Protection Act", anything else would probably not be appropriate anyway ;-) --Ivy (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

WP guidelines discourage the use of phrases like, "it is commonly known" and encourage presenting the evidence. Try,

"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 way, rather than assert that it is "commonly known", you show the reader the facts that prove that the culture is so widespread. Readers do not have to take your (or Nemissimo's, or anyone's) word for it, they can *see for themselves* that the culture is widespread. Does this make any sense? Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

bdsmbooks.com vs. Silver Moon

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)

Neutral referee: Silver Moon seems to be very much still in business, so "successor" is totally inappropriate. I removed it and its reference. As to whether to have the link to bdsmbooks.com at all, the impression from my visit was similar to that of ElizaBarrington, except that I didn't get past the "enter" page. I browse with Javascript disabled and do not enable it when I do not know with whom I am dealing or the site does not have a substantial reputation. Cannot judge this site. With reference to my previous comment about spam links, I agree that on this particular topic, the emergence of specialized publishers may help document, if not the growth in participation in BDSM, at least the growth in the public availability of literature, and hence of acceptance, or at least legal and societal toleration. I would think that criteria for listing such a source would be number of years continuously in business, sales (if audited by a reliable source), participation in fairs, conventions, etc. (documented). Only the most noteworthy should be listed, to illustrate the point. The article must not become a catalog. Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:02, 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)

The entire thrust of this article is that BDSM is consensual. As per my post regarding a list that included films of non-consensual violencs, the books mentioned by EB, containing non-consensual violence, are not pertinent to this article (regardless of the age of the victims, though that makes them even worse). Consider, for example, Ted Bundy, a serial killer of young women. He raped many and bit some on the buttocks or nipples. Surely this community does not wish for the general public to associate Bundy with BDSM? But that is what will happen if depictions of non-consensual violence are linked from here. It's not my place to say, but if I were involved with this community, I'd take great pains (oh, no, another pun -- sorry) to distinguish a culture of freely-consenting adults from any book, movie, or person involving coercion, non-consensual violence, etc. (Oh, and glad you like the nick.) Unimaginative Username (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the deletion of the link.Oh, didn't I praise your nick before too? ;-) --Nemissimo (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so, but can't immediately find where :) Glad you like it -- and watch out where the <small> goes, as it makes the posts hard to read :-( Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey all -- I'm the one who added the "successor" link, and here's the simple logic behind it. Silvermoon books was founded in 1992 by Pentland Hick, who also earlier founded Flamingo_Land. Mr. Hick then went on to sell Silvermoon books a few years later, and then in 1999 to found another bdsm publisher, bdsmbooks.com. This is all easily verified by asking either the owners of Silvermoon, or Mr. Hick himself. So "successor" is a pretty obvious word. As for notability of the two sites, they're both relatively small bdsm publishers. "Silver moon books" has 583 ghits and the home page has a PageRank of 2. "Bdsmbooks" has 5380 ghits and the home page has a PageRank of 3. So if Silvermoon is notable enough to be listed, so I'd say is bdsmbooks, 10 times more so. Steve Rapaport (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please the the arguments given above. From my point of view both publishers can be deleted.--Nemissimo (talk) 10:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Eliza -- can you support your assertion about the inclusion of stories about minors? My look through the site didn't find any, but did find author guidelines explicitly forbidding exactly that in the first sentence! [6] I don't think your argument holds unless you can verify such defamatory claims. Silver Moon is indeed a reputable publisher, but I don't see why your having heard of one of Pentland Hick's imprints and not the other makes one more reputable. By Alexa popularity, it seems the other way round, in fact: http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&CategoryID=227433&mode=general&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity Steve Rapaport (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy-editor's suggested plan

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:

• Go through the entire article with the same criteria as the parts that we have already discussed. Namely,

1. Cite sources for as many statements as possible.
2. Define all special terms in ways that will be understood by readers who are not familiar with the topic.
3. Reach consensus among the involved editors on the content and language of each section.
4. If possible, get the interested editors who are native speakers of English to help with the tremendous challenge of crafting an article from a translation from another language. This burden should not have to be borne only by the non-native-English editors, who have done a fine job.

• Consider whether any articles could be split off from this article. The article is now 100kb long. There are a few other articles on en.wp that are this long, but policy encourages shorter articles:

1. Easier to edit
2. Easier to review
3. Easier for readers, more likely to attract readers and not exceed their attention span.

• Perhaps withdraw the copy-editing request until these are complete.
• The article is exceeding this user's available time for copy-editing, but it is a worthwhile article that may have difficulty attracting other copy-editors, who may find its topic objectionable or uncomfortable. When it is agreed that the above goals are met, feel free to make a new copy-edit request, and also to leave a message for me. In the meantime, if there are particular *short* questions about grammar, wording, translation, etc., feel free to ask on my talk page. I will respond when able. I will also try to have a look at the article once in a while as other duties permit.

Fair enough? Good luck to all, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

... And termination of the "official" copyedit

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)

possible improvements?

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 added a couple of lists, including the one you referenced above. Please see the article's "see also" section. Keeper | 76 20:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've come up with a list of things that may be useful in improving the article.

1) Expand the introduction to the article so it gives the reader an idea of what it is about without having to go through most of the detail in the later sections.

2) Have a uniform style throughout the article. See WP:STYLE for details.

3) References don't need to start with "See..." at the beginning. Using the citation templates can help make the references to be much clearer. Repeated references can use the "ref name" function. References should be placed directly after punctuation marks (commas, periods etc.), with no spaces between them. Also find references where citations are needed and for sections of the article with no references in them (for example - "Dominance and submission").

4) It may be advisable to move, shrink down or remove some of the images to give the article a better appearance, preventing paragraphs from having large spaces between them. For example, the "Prejudices" could lose one image.

5) Carry out the suggested split and create the BDSM in culture and media article.

6) Merge small paragraphs which consist of only one or two sentences with larger paragraphs to give a better style.

7) A general copyedit to check spelling, grammar etc.

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)

ongoing translation work

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)

• My fault. I wasn't aware of the translation. I removed the Austria section because I couldn't find a reference for it. I've put back the sections. I apologise again. ISD (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

cities with large BDSM scenes

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)

• That sounds logical. There is probably an article to be written about geographic concentration of minorities... there certainly seems to be a literature on this, see for example [7] and [8]... -- The Anome (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias

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)

Would you like to suggest how the article could be improved? -- The Anome (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We need a section on the "other sides" of the argument - the views of groups (religious, historical, and psychological) that view BDSM as a psychological or moral aberration (didn't much of the practice of BDSM used to be listed in the DSM-IV?): a "BDSM is bad!" perspective. Personally, I don't think it is (or I wouldn't have 450' of rope and a nice collection of floggers in my closet), but in the interests of balance, the opposing viewpoint needs to be presented. -- 70.54.22.62 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does not require that every article needs to have a "criticism" section - in fact, that itself can violate NPOV. See Wikipedia:Criticism for discussion on this. BDSM is not an "argument" being put forward, so there is no need to put the "other side" because there is no other side. If we do list any viewpoints of what people think about BDSM, it needs to be notable and referenced. An obvious comparison would be homosexuality - e.g., Societal attitudes toward homosexuality. The point is it shouldn't be about presenting "the other side" as if this was some two sided argument, instead Wikipedia should just neutrally present what people's attitudes towards it are. Mdwh (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point - I withdraw the suggestion -- 70.54.22.62 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Chastity Belts & BDSM

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)

Women

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)

There're not? [9] and [10]. Mdwh (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken Links

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)

Sub Space 3/11/08 Emily Willis

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)

The entire section is unreferenced and describes a personal experience. I've known only a few subs who experience this kind of space, and many more who do not. Indeed, *not* being in a "trance like state" is highly desirable to them so they can get the full experience of the scene. I've tagged the section for now, but the section really needs references or just plain deletion as WP:POV or WP:OR. HalJor (talk) 16:02, 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)

• I think "subspace" would qualify as a neologism and as such not really something that an encyclopedic article can be written about. JuJube (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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;[11] [12] 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)

---

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)

Psychology Section Expansion

BDSM can be cute also. ^_^

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)

You state you're sexually open-minded, then call the practice (and indirectly it's practitioners) creepy and disgusting. As a BDSM practitioner, I find your judgemental attitude to be no less descriptive. A harmless section regarding the psychology would be intriguing, but your verbal inflictions were unnecessary. LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

From one point of view you could say; Society has been fetishizing violence for a very long time now, this could simply be seen as the logical conclusion. Similar to the extreme popularity of slasher movies. Zazaban (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal squeamishness about the issue aside, Gummy Dummy, I too, would welcome information about the psychology of BDSM, provided it comes from reliable sources. Asarelah (talk) 01:54, 4 August 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)

Edit:I put up an image for you Gummy. :) Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, the book "Arousal:The Secret Logic of Sexual Fantasies" touches on BDSM fantasies and does a good job of explaining at least some of the psychology. Unfortunately I don't have the book anymore, but I'm sure someone could get it a library. Asarelah (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wild Side Sex goes into detail about erotic humiliation if anyone's interested:(the part on the psychology of erotic humiliation can be found on Google books)

Wild Side Sex: The Book of Kink Educational, Sensual, And Entertaining Essays. Daedalus Publishing. 2005. p. 48. ISBN 9781881943228. http://books.google.com/books?id=SO0BbX_oBiUC&dq=erotic+humiliation&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

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)

new link to be added.

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)

commercial site, not really appropriate. thanks. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)