Talk:BDSM in culture and media

message: The images used in the article don't appear to have anything to do with the article's subject aside from being examples of BDSM. I would think examples of the media being discussed, assuming we could get some that qualify under fair use, would be better suited for this particular article. --OGoncho (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I'll try to dig out the reference, but I read a scholarly book on goths that explicitly stated that Nine Inch Nails was replete with BDSM references both in lyrics and visually. References to femdom/male sub BDSM at that.
IsaacSapphire (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nine Inch Nails

message: The links for: The Room (A couple on BDSM and their relationship) and Submissive Ophelia podcast (Lifestyle/pro submissive woman married in a 24/7 relationship) are no longer working. The Room goes to a short directory while Submissive Ophelia podcast generates a page not found error. 
I'd like to add the podcast Certified Sound. The show discusses kink and sexuality in general but regularly does shows on BDSM topics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.116.4 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Podcasts

message: The relationship between this article and Sadism and masochism in fiction needs to be sorted out.  Would it make sense to transfer the sections on Films, Television, Video Games?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with [[Sadism and masochism in fiction]] 

message: I vote that we change the name of the article to "BDSM in popular culture". DanielDPeterson (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change? 

message: I think the Music section is in real need of re-organisation. It seems quite a mess to me: lacking structure. Or is it just me? I don't know much about editing in wikipedia, but it just seems very hard to get overview from that section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.178.109 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music section 

message: I have recently been experiencing "differences of opinion" with another Wikipedia user, upon adding the major new academic book on the history of the Dominatrix. The other user deleted the book, claiming they couldn't find the ISBN. (The ISBN was in fact easily searchable, through Amazon, Google, Nielsen, anywhere, so it would appear he didn't look properly.)
Reinstating the book, and reassuring him that the ISBN was correct and entirely searchable, he then deleted again unilaterally and without talk, due to it being apparently self-published.
Now this is an interesting point. As in general terms of course, Wikipedia doesn't like self-published books. However specific to BDSM, a huge percentage of the books are self-published due to the nature of the formerly taboo subject not attracting willing publishers. Jay Wiseman's books (self-published under Greenery Press) - Lady Green / Janet Hardy (self-published with partner Jay Wiseman of Greenery Press) - Dr Gloria Brame's books are all self-published. (She has a PhD and is a qualified sexologist however) - Philip Miller & Molly Devon's book is self-published (under Mystic Rose Books) etc (I could list numerous titles).
I put it to others and to more broad consensus, that BDSM seems to need its own exemption to general Wikipedia guidelines in terms of usually excluding self-published books, as in BDSM most books are self-published. Nor are they academically cited in some kind of academic journal for review. (There's no academic journal of BDSM, it's a shame!)
I would propose criteria for citing publications in broad terms on the BDSM pages (and related topic areas), is not criteria of whether a book is self-published (as this would knock out virtually all our beloved titles - Jay Wiseman's wonderful "SM101", or Janet Hardy's books on Topping and Bottoming - all self-published under Greenery Press which is Jay Wiseman and Janet Hardy (also using the name "Lady Green" - a Mistress identity adopted by Janet Hardy). Or the wonderful book "Screw the Roses, Give Me The Thorns" also self-published by the authors, who used the publishing name Mystic Rose Books. So self-publishing doesn't seem to be a very good criteria for excluding the major BDSM publications.
Another issue specific to BDSM publications is that authors often use a psuedonym or their Mistress name. Such as Lady Green who is of course Janet Hardy. Or Mistress Loralei. Many books on sexuality more generally are published under a psuedonym in an attempt to protect the author's identity. Such as Belle De Jour for Brooke Magnanti. A history stretching right back to the Victorian era of Pisanus Fraxi as Henry Spencer Ashbee. Or the psuedonymous "Walter". 
So specific to BDSM, we need to rethink the critria. I would propose:
- Author well-regarded in fetish lifestyle circles, and/or academic circles.
- Book well-written and well-researched 
- Book referenced with footnotes if presented in academic style
- Book mentioned in major fetish magazines and publications, where editorial has not been paid for but is a genuine endorsement
- Community / scene backing of author
and so on, etc.
Does anyone have anything to contribute on thoughts and consensus on criteria, regarding issues of BDSM books being typically self-published, sometimes under a psuedonym, which is contrary to typical Wikipedia preferences but is typical for the subject of BDSM...??
I think it's a very interesting topic to put to wider consensus in general terms. Seeing as the particular user is known on Wikipedia for deleting articles and additions in general across huge ranges of topics, without Talk contribution, and he may not be aware of the nuances of BDSM books being so typically self-published. I'm worried he shall next delete every book off the list on this basis.
Scholarlyfemme (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your criteria above are interesting but need to be shown:
* Can you show the author is well regarded in academic circles?  Nothing so far shows that.
* Who judges it to be well written/researched. This is not a function of Wikipedia, but of academia.
* Presented in academic style - a student research paper should meet that criteria but would not automatically be an academic book
* Mentioned in major publications - you have yet  to show any,
* Community/scene backing - where? online forums and similar are not reliable. 
You claim it is an academic book but have failed to show it being acknowledged as such by academics - without that, an anonymous, self published book, added by an editing with a name such as scholarlyfemme sounds like spamming the book. You have failed to show a reason it should be listed in the article.
I am not the only editor that has removed this publication from a BDSM article after you had added it.  And WP:BRD puts the emphasis on you to bring it to the talk page and gain consensus BEFORE reinstating the disputed material. noq (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Just repeating your first post does nothing to get consensus - there is none here despite your reverting again against WP:BRD.  As for Dominatrix I see no indication at Talk:Dominatrix that your edits had been discussed to gain consensus and at Talk:BDSM there is just someone explaining why they reverted your edits.  Again, not WP:consensus.  Your having successfully managed to insert the book in other pages does nothing to show it should be here.  The DDIMAG ref could be the start of that but I would like someone else who has access to that publication to confirm what you claim.  I have posted a request for opinion on the project talk page to hopefully attract some more knowledgeable editors.noq (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Despite your attempts to paint me as the villain here, my edit summaries while not always giving an essay on all the reasons each time I am not making misleading claims of having gained a consensus on those summaries like you have. And you have still failed to follow WP:BRD - your change should wait until consensus - that guideline requires you to go to talk page not me. Your descriptions of the book as scholarly without any justification and your user name makes it seem reasonable to think you are trying to use Wikipedia to push the recently published book.  noq (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I did not remove it solely because it was self published - although that was part of reasoning - you are focussing on that not me. Please do not keep adding any new book that is published on the subject as that would not be appropriate - Wikipedia is not a directory and there should be a good reason for it to be included as was explained to you by another editor on another page - which is why I have not repeated that here - it is almost always inappropriate to add a book just because it has been published. I have also pointed out to you on several occasions that WP:BRD means the onus is on you to gain consensus when things that you have added are reverted by other editors - I always provide edit summaries that relate to at least some of the reasons that the entry is removed, you however seem to leave misleading edit summaries claiming a consensus exists when it clearly does not. The bigger picture seems to me to be an attempt to WP:SOAPBOX on the issue. For the book to be listed, just being published is not enough - you have acknowledged that but have claimed that this should be an exception because it is hard to find things to justify it and this is not good enough. There are academics that make studies of various aspects related to sex and sexuality so you cannot just say nothing exists in academia and then claim this book to be academic. There is no evidence of the book meeting your own criteria other than a single review - and as I have already explained I have issues with some of your criteria. The initial edits on a subject that inevitably attracts vandalism could easily be taken as a vandal edit and subsequent ones seemed to be pushing the book. The changes to my edit summaries were made to clarify why I reverted. I have a watchlist of currently of 15,000 pages just keeping on top of that takes a lot of time so I am sorry if I do not always have the time to write essays to people that do seem to be trying to promote a book.  noq (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria and thoughts on BDSM publications, given most are a) self-published and b) not academically reviewed 

message: Dear editor, I would like to recommend my webpage as database about BDSM related mainstream media: http://www.bdsmculture.com.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.109.146 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BDSM Culture webpage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on BDSM in culture and media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220022334/http://www.mini.ca/en/More_MINI/MINIfun/DominateWinter/default.aspx to http://www.mini.ca/en/More_MINI/MINIfun/DominateWinter/default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928014208/http://www.graydancer.com/ropeweekly/ to http://www.graydancer.com/ropeweekly/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220132627/http://subophelia.podomatic.com/ to http://subophelia.podomatic.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100808071117/http://dungeonplace.com/hole/podcasts/ to http://dungeonplace.com/hole/podcasts/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The image used looks more like a judicial or forced punishment flogging of a naked woman. Maybe it belongs in such an article but it's not really representative of BDSM. Biofase flame| stalk  13:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literature image