Talk:BDSM/Archive 1

message: From the article:
:It is one of the most popular 'free time' activities in Japan. Over 40% of the Japanese population partake in this sexual behaviour. 
That's a lot. Most cultures seem to have a much lower BDSM preference level -- 5% to 10% is the typical range of figures quoted.  Do you have evidence for this figure?  And do you mean '40% of the sexually active Japanese population'? 40% of the entire population would make this figure even more remarkable.
Not very remarkable at all considering the rates of pedophilia and (maternal) incest in that country. It's a very sick country.
Looking at Japanese porn, I'd characterize it as fetishizing:
* bondage in ropes (specifically)
* pedophilia
* scatology 
* rape
* mmmmmF (multiple men often using vibrators and dildos)
And remember, for it's not slander if it's true. Which it is.
:And if it's true, you'll certainly be able to find cites for it. Right? -- Montréalais
What does that 5-10 per cent figure mean anyway? If you once or twice messed around with a blindfold or a love bite, does that mean you're as kinky as someone who's made the Scene a major part of their life? That figure is about a meaningful as the "10% of people are gay" stat. Something like the Kinsey scale is needed.
I bet that the figures in the article are some kind of mistake. Japaenese may sexually be more or less active. But definitely not 40%. Taku 23:04 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
:What you find in a person's porn collection isn't necessarily what they do. It's not even necessarily what they want to do (although obviously there's a connection there). I know only children with stories about sibling incest on their hard drives.
:This scales to 127 million people, or 51 million people, or however many people we want to ascribe all allegedly Japanese porn to. If a white American catering to a white American "yellow fever" market draws cartoon porn in a manga style, with content based on what the artist imagines Japanese porn to be like or what the audience imagines Japanese women to be like, how does that figure into the sample whence these examples were drawn? --Calieber 14:31, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been claimed (dubiously) that BDSM is one of the most popular 'free time' activities in Japan, and over 40% of the Japanese population partake in this sexual behaviour. 
Until someone can come up with a cite, it shouldn't be put back. -- Karada 23:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan and the 5 to 10% 

message: This article is now full of good material. It needs a major restructuring/refactoring to consolidate it further.
::Im sorry it is not. BDSM stands for Bondage (B) Bondage & Discipline (B&D) Domination & Submission (S&M) yet the text focus almost obsessively on flaggetation, whipping and spanking. Have a fresh look at what the abbreviation stands for and dont redefine the term to fit only one variety of BDSM play. Better say something nice, well: The historical background is good and can be kept as it.
::It is actually BDSM = B&D (Bondage and Discipline), D&S (Domination and Submission) , S&M (Sadism and Mosochism). 
The term is now used in the U.S. to cover pretty much the entire broad spectrum of all kinky/fetish activity, rather than those specific areas.  
Atomaton 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  restructuring/refactoring 

message: Re: sadism / masochism as mental illness: see http://psychcentral.com/disorders/sx90.htm for cites.  Note that they are listed as disorders in themselves: subject to the criterion that they "cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" i.e. are not a disorder in most cases. Karada 22:02 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
: Let me use a less controversial parallel example of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). I hope this makes some sense... :-/
: excessive hand-washing is one possible symptom of OCD. OCD can cause excessive hand-washing. Therefore, if a psychiatrist sees excessive hand-washing, sie may diagnose OCD. Sie may treat hir patient for OCD to deal with the hand-washing. However, it is not the case that hand-washing is OCD.
: Similarly, while BDSM activities may be a symptom of the mental disorder of "sexual sadism", the symptom is not the disease. For example, suppose I go to work normally monday to friday, and at the weekend I whip someone into a frenzy. A psychiatrist might diagnose sexual sadism. However, the whipping is not the sadism - I only whip two days a weak, but I am "disordered" all week. One shouldn't confuse the "diagnostic criteria" of some disorder for the disorder itself. Martin
: I can put that better. The activities are sufficient to diagnose the disorder. A rash that doesn't fade under pressure is sufficient to diagnose meningitis. However, the rash is not meningitis, and the activities are not the disorder. Martin
::OK, that's a better way of putting it. Thank you. Karada 22:43 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
"Most people who practice BDSM, as well as most psychiatrists, do not view these practices as disordered," is a mostly pointless sentance, if not mostly wrong. Saying the practitioners didn't see it as disordered is like saying Hitler saw killing upwards of six million Jews in order, and that made it okay. There's no point. And secondly, "most" psychiatrists I've met and brought up this issue with have said that something is wrong with, somewhat surprisingly, "most" of the practitioners of BDSM. While I have no personal qualms with most of this article, that sentance needs to be remade, restructured, or simply deleted.
:I disagree with the analogy - it should be compared to mental disorders in general, and I'd say that mostly people with a disorder acknowledge this, and only a minority (e.g., people who are Pro-ana) consider it to be a lifestyle choice rather than a disorder.
:Having said that, perhaps the mention of "psychiatrists" should be removed, if we do not have evidence either way. Mdwh 22:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sadism / masochism as mental illness 

message: Aside from the discussion about the definition of BDSM as a mental illness, can anyone say anything about psychological theories explaining why people like BDSM, or why some people do and others don't? Ehudzel 00:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychology 

message: "In the past, sadomasochistic activities and fantasies were regarded by most psychiatrists as pathological, but have been regarded as increasingly acceptable since at least the 1990s. Indeed, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) asserts that "The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors" must "cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning" in order for sexual sadism or masochism to be considered a disorder. Psychiatrists now regard sadism and masochism not as disorders in and of themselves, but only as disorders when associated with other problems such as a personality disorder."
This seems to be plagarized from: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/BDSM_-_Psychological/id/1295570
Quote from article:
:"There are anecdotal reports of people willingly being bound or whipped as a prelude to, or substitue for, sex going back to the fourteenth century."
This is very interesting, if it has a basis in fact. Cite, please? -- The Anome 12:49, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
At the head of the article, it does categorize BDSM as a form of human sexual behavior, however as the article progresses the emphasis on BDSM as a sexual activity wanes somewhat.  Perhaps this should be obvious or is assumed, yet in the article it seems that BDSM is more and more tacitly relegated to mere psychological posturing or role-taking, when the crux of the activity ultimately and most importantly involves a means to sexual titillation, gratification and fulfillment.  Apart from this quibble, I think it would be good if someone could incorporate into the BDSM article an emphasis/analysis on the underlying sexual roles and postures inherent in our species: our inborn, hardwired dramatic aspect when it comes to the sexual act . . . how violence, subservience and the like all feed into the most important and primevally oriented process of getting sperm to meet egg. (Think of nape biting and holding by dogs, for example, or the many and assorted dominance-submissive behaviors of other species facilitating coitus. After all, BDSM would not exist were it not for this basic sexual biological process that well predates humankind. We humans merely enhance this drama via the abstractions and symbolisms afforded by the human intellect and mind.)
----
I think the article about BDSM is surprisingly good. There are always parts I could have written differently, but most of it is better than I could have made it. It is well balanced, and it avoids some clichés and myths that other sites with information about BDSM have.
I do think it ought to be mentioned that the term BDSM isn't quite as well known and widely accepted as many people think, though. Most vanilla people don't know what BDSM is. They still talk about SM, S/M or S&M. And I think it is a matter of discussion if the BD part fits well with the DS and SM parts. But this still isn't too important when most of the article is good.
:In Finnish, the established meaning of "SM" (without a slash or ampersand) is "Suomenmestaruus", meaning "championship of Finland". "S/M" or "S&M" refer to BDSM, like in English. I always refer to BDSM as BDSM regardless of language but I might be in a minority.  — JIP | Talk 18:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite please 

message: Is there a reason the top and bottom articles haven't been merged into this page (they are sort of stubbish), or at least more information from those two put into this one to clarify a few definitions, especially between "top and bottom" and "dominant and submissive," without the reader having to refer to the outside articles? If vanilla folks confuse the two (or is that four?), it would be a good way to inform them. addesso 03:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[top (BDSM)|Top]] and [[bottom (BDSM)|bottom]] articles/definitions. 

message: The introduction has the line:
This emphasis on informed consent and safety is also known as SSC (safe, sane and consensual), though others prefer RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink), which places the emphasis more on informed consent, and acknowledges the fact that all activities are potentially risky. (emphasis added)
Now, since I'm here just to get my kicks from the grammar, and I don't have the faintest bloody idea if that's correct, I'm asking: shouldn't that say less?  Because that would make sense, and this version doesn't to me.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: Our article contains:
# When there is abuse in the relationship, the submissive is as likely to be abusive as the dominant.
What do we mean by "abuse"?  Non-consentual behavior?  If so, is this statement possibly true?  It seems to me that the one who's restrained is less likely to be abusive.  Do we have any facts?  I prospose to remove this line unless we have a lot more information.  getaaron
:--Seems to me that this is very likely true. You don't exclude anything outside of sexual activity just because of the nature of the relationship - just because someone does the spanking in the bedroom, for example, doesn't mean it's impossible for them to be slapped around in the kitchen. Still, without anything to back it up, the statement doesn't really mean much. Wisco 07:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is unsourced. I replaced it with a weaker, but unarguably true statement. Catamorphism 08:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does abuse have to do with BDSM?  BDSM is about consensual behavior.  Sure, non-con activity happens in many contexts, but this is an article about consensual interaction. Atomaton 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusive BDSM Relationships 

message: In the article it says that the New Guard appeared in the mid-nineties, after the advent of the internet. I am not an expert on this, so I doubt that I will rewrite anything, but I have read elsewhere that the New Guard appeared around the same time as the Old Guard, in the 1950's or 60's. That New Guard was in fact stricter than Old Guard in some ways, and came as a reaction to what some people saw as sloppiness of the older people. It is possible that I have got this all wrong, but I believe that I have read this. Can someone who knows more about this clarify things a bit, in the article or here in the comments? --Blue Elf 00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New and Old Guard

message: there was an addition of a czech link today which leads to what looks like a link-collection. I don't know about it... seems relevant... but I'll be damned if I understand any of that page. How about we purge it here and send it over to the czech wikipedia instead? --J-Star 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I removed it (though I haven't added it to the Czech Wikipedia, if someone else wants to do that) - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Foreign-language_sites - it may well be a good site, but not of much use to most English readers. Mdwh 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Czech links? 

message: I removed the image :File:Waiting by Balzac.png from this article and Impact play, because it seems to be rather out of place. First and foremost, I'm not sure why a rendered image is of any use to the article-- there are many photographs that can illustrate BDSM, with real people, so I'm unsure as to what the point of the image would be, seeing as it's clearly substandard to what we can provide. 
Secondly, we already have images that illustrate the practice of flogging, this image is purely redundant.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: we often use artwork, rather than photographs, as it avoids the problems of model release, vanity photography and similar aspects. I've re-added it to both works since it seems equally valid as our other illustrations. Max Rebo Band (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't, if we have photographs they are always preferred over drawings or diagrams, especially this low quality poser art. I've gone and removed the image from both articles again, as well as this ':File:Rendered Handcuffed Nude Model.jpg'. Neither of these images are needed in either article, and both are of extremely poor quality compared to the photographic images we have in both articles. I appogize for not replying sooner, but I missed this reply.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: File:Flogging demo folsom 2004.jpg is far from a "high quality photographic image", I mean it's photographic, yes - but beyond that it's really quite poor quality. And the statement "if we have photographs they are always preferred over drawings or diagrams" is patently untrue, want to go look at Rape or Cunnilingus? For sexually explicit subjects, we often prefer to use Art instead of photographs, or we use both.  Max Rebo Band (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about taking both images out? This isn't the article about flogging. Besides, the "rendered" artwork is pretty poor quality, so complaining about the poor quality of the photo seems moot. I'd take out all the rendered images based on this quality criterion. In fact, I'd winnow the images in this article pretty heavily; it seems to be pretty image heavy, and not all images are relevant to the sections they are displayed beside. 99.234.48.101 (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Digging around, it looks like both rendered images have been uploaded by Max Rebo Band, and copied off the same external Wiki/website. I'm not sure if the same user created the images or not - almost impossible to tell - but they can hardly be considered to be objective in either case. - 99.234.48.101 (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not create the images, take a look at my upload history and you'll see it's not surprising that two BDSM-related images were uploaded by me. Max Rebo Band (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

text: As long as they ad information? Sure it does...--84.152.125.1 (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the topic of photographs...  Maybe take off that photo of the man with a knife up his bum and another one in his... somewhere.  I don't quite see how it compliments or illustrates the fine concepts and practices of the article in such a responsible way.  I mean, call me vanilla but maybe the fear of accidental manslaughter is a little more than simply erotic or safe sex play.  Doctors see enough accidents as it is.  Oops, I did it again.  I played with your spleen.  Ooo puncture, baby!    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.192.254 (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed image.