Talk:BDSM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article milestones

Date Process Result

November 22, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed

November 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed

 

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Sexology and sexuality       (Rated B-Class)

Sexuality portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject LGBT studies     (Rated B-Class)

LGBT portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

PEER This article is currently being peer reviewed.

A request was made for this article, or a prior version of it, to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors on 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC). Unfortunately, the request was denied – the reason for its refusal is given below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Proofread denied by Unimaginative Username (talk) (04:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)) – Substantial discussion and improvement, but still needs revision beyond copy-editing: sources, verifiability, clear definition of terms, etc. Left a suggested plan for improvement..

Archives

---

2003-2006 May 2006-present

[edit] 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)

[edit] CastleRealm?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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:

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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

Podiobook (Podcast audiobook) of Dollie Llama and ThornDaddy's book "Diary of an S&M Romance", http://www.podiobooks.com/title/sm-diary Dollie Llama recorded the spoken wikipedia article on "BDSM".

Just what the name says. And it's hosted by a BDSM lifestyle switch woman, and frequently includes BDSM. Sometimes co-hosted by the host's submissive. http://polyweekly.libsyn.com/

http://subophelia.podomatic.com/ Infrequent but great cast from lifestyle/pro submissive woman. She is a pro, but also married in a 24/7 relationship, and does not use the cast to "hook" customers.

http://www.greatsexgames.com/podcast/ Not only kink, but about all sex. Includes some kink-friendly discussions Very popular educational sex cast that sometimes covers BDSM.

http://www.youtube.com/user/alyssium YouTube podcast (yes, it has an RSS feed) of BDSM educational information. Hasn't been updated in six months, but there are over 20 episodes, and it's very good stuff, especially for beginners. Hosted by female lifestyle submissive, it's just her talking into a webcam, but is very down to earth and informative. Not listed on iTunes, but some of the episodes have over 10,000 views, so it does qualify as popular, as well as being useful and easy to digest. I'd highly recommend for anyone just getting their feet wet. ---

I would consider scrutinizing any future podcast additions by pro Dommes (and submissives)...There seems to be a glut (dozens or scores) of podcasts by pros that are nothing more than long, weekly advertisements to hook clients, and are not really exemplary of positive BDSM relationships. Nothing against pros, but seriously, I'd recommend *listening* to any podcasts proffered to Wikipedia by pros before adding to the BDSM article in the future.

The same would apply to links to websites and blogs run by pros. There are hundreds, if not thousands. I'm sure some will try to add links in the future, if they haven't already.

ElizaBarrington (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Human rights?

Part of the article now reads,

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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:

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

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)

[edit] Questions from the copy-editor

[edit] "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)

Dossie Easton, Janet W. Hardy: The New Topping Book. Page 111-112, Greenery Press (CA) 2002, ISBN 1-890159-36-0:

Arne Hoffmann: Das Lexikon des Sadomasochismus, Page 10, Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf 2000, ISBN 3-896-022-903(German). (Translation Quick&Dirty):

Jay Wiseman: SM 101: A Realistic Introduction, Pages 316, ISBN 0963976389:

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)

</