Talk:Hogtie bondage

message: Has Crypto ever looked at the article Page 3 girl?  This shows bare breasts and is surely considerably more offensive to those objecting to nudity than anything in this article.  Furthermore, it is entirely gratuitous; even those who have never seen a Sun page 3 need little imagination to guess what a picture of a topless girl looks like, whereas the photos here do illustrate some rather complex concepts.  Will Crypto delete the photo in that article?  If not, why not? - 81.153.43.82 10:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't known about that "Page 3 girl" article until you told me. I think that is BY ALL MEANS obscene! That you can quote one image that Matt has not referred to does not mean that the images on this article are not objectionable! (In my opinion, that "Page 3 girl" image has to be deleted as well!) That's why I suggest that (if those nude images have to stay) at least a "WARNING" be added before the viewers are directed to this article. A simple statement on the link from "hogtie" to "BDSM hogtie" explaining that the article contains some explicit materials will be OK. What do you think? 222.166.160.225 15:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone's removed it, and a good thing too.  I have no doubt that it was far more obscene than anything in this article.  And User:61.10.7.221 - it isn't Wiki etiquette to insert something in an existing comment without signing it. Taxwoman 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the image on Page 3 girl probably wasn't appropriate. First of all it's not a subject that benefits significantly from illustration. Secondly the image was commercial and probably didn't have proper licensing to use on Wikipedia. The images in this article, although commercial, were apparently donated under the GFDL by the owner to Wikipedia. Kaldari 19:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the situation in Page 3 girl is a little different, even without the copyvio issue. I agree with you that a hogtie is a subject that does need illustration, particularly when describing elaborate variations such as shown on this page. I just don't think nudity is necessary to illustrate these complex positions. In addition, topless nudity is a strong feature of the page 3 girl, whereas it is not an essential feature of hogtie bondage. — Matt Crypto 17:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page 3 girl 

message: I had a quick comment.  While the article says "The person being bound may be either male or female," all three pictures on the page are of women.  Perhaps that is because we can't find pictures of males in these bondage positions.  However, including only pictures of women to illustrate these poses further contributes to the stereotype of "heterosexual BDSM is a male dominant and female submissive,"  as described on BDSM.  (or perhaps these women are lesbians, but I don't think that is the assumption that will be made). I suggest finding pictures of men for at a least one of the poses to make the article more balanced.  This is also a problem at Bondage (BDSM).--Kewp (t) 08:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right - obtaining the sort of images that people want is very difficult.  I can add from personal experience that if you are in a contorted position such as a stringent hogtie, clothing can often get very uncomfortable.  Even a bra strap can dig in painfully.  I'd far sooner be in the nude. --Taxwoman 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I don't care strongly about this one way or another. My first impression was to prefer the clothed picture (it just looks better to me and the nudity seems slightly gratuitous) but then it occurred to me that the nude picture may be slightly more illustrative in that it shows the effect of the bondage on the blood-flow of the model. Obviously, this is not an overriding consideration. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good point. The nude image better illustrates the stress such a position imposes on the body. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 06:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still the same old discussion: only if nudity is absolutely necessary!  Obviously it is not.  Read the previous discussions.137.189.4.1 04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why absolutely necessary? Merely benifical (like this one clearly is) ought to be enough. Mathmo 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is only your point of view!  Nudity is more comfortable for the model?  I doubt it.  The ropes directly contacting the skin can cause bleeding when the bondage victim struggles.  Can bleeding be comfortable?  Clothes bondage somehow reduces the risk of skin damage.218.254.187.44 06:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No thanks.  So chafing is not a kind of damage.  How ridiculous.  I tried that and I've found that tying on the clothing never damages my skin.  I don't need to be tested by you.  I trust myself.  Don't pretend to be the sole expert.  Not everyone has to agree with you.  That's all.218.254.187.44 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the question is how well the picture illustrates the concept being discussed. This article is not about the position per se (for which, see hogtie), but about the bondage practices associated with it. The question, therefore, is not whether it's more comfortable with or without clothing, but which is more representative for hogtie bondage. Yes, it can be done clothed, but the overriding motivation is sexual, and for that reason, a state of undress is typical. --Hogtied 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not typical in my opinion.  Many people, as far as what I can find on the web, prefer clothed bondage, and the motivation is still sexual!218.254.187.44 14:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any citations for that? "As far as I can find on the web" is a pretty vague commendation. --Hogtied 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: How is the argument changed, may I ask?  He sticks to the same point from the beginning to the end.  From what you have just written, it seems that you understand his argument thoroughly!!  Nudity is NOT comfortable because bleeding is NOT comfortable, NEITHER is chafing.  Clothes bondage is good because all these risks are reduced.  He is making responses correspondingly.  It is perfectly true that not all websites about bondage are associated with nudity.  I am on his side, because I only like going to those websites about clothes bondage.  GABTU, BoundGuys, CapturedGuys, BareFootBound, just to name a few.137.189.4.1 10:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the difference?!  Nobody is doing anything about this page, even though there has been SO MUCH disagreement about using nude female models!  Those problematic pics are never removed or replaced, and worse still, one more OBSCENE picture showing the woman's breasts from the front view is added!  What's the point of all the discussion going on here?  This page is simply dominated by a few who take for granted that they are right, and who shun off any other opinions!137.189.4.1 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the comfortableness of being bound while naked is a matter of personal opinion and cannot be argued one way or the other. Also, I added a Pros and Cons table to the "Images" section of this discussion page. Feel free to play around with it. Supergyro2k 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Want a bet? Even if we can list more cons than pros, the pictures are still going to stay here because those who put up the pictures are too arrogant to accept different opinions or even to admit that they do not hold the truth in their hands! Instead of seeing those obscene pictures showing nude models being removed, we will only see even more pictures of such kind being uploaded here! Those who have uploaded the obscene pictures are just too self-indulgent.137.189.4.1 15:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't comment on the motivations of those who would like to keep the images in question, and I think such motivations are irrelevant. Wikipedia is user-edited, and you and I are both users. We can edit the article if we choose.Supergyro2k 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the Pros and Cons table I added to the "Images" section provides a basis for moving Model_in_classic_Hogtie.jpg below the fold and removing Model_in_bondage.jpg entirely. I have done this and personally find that it enhances the article. One benefit of this move I hadn't anticipated is that now a viewer, who is unfamiliar with this subject, can see "sexual bondage" written in the opening sentence without having to unwittingly see actual sexual bondage. Sorry to those who liked Model_in_bondage.jpg, but I ended up with more Cons than Pros for it.Supergyro2k 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An outsider's view 

message: Four out of four images use female models. Any special reason, except the fact that the editors are male and that female bondage fits better with their fantasies ? Hektor 15:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more to do with the availability of images. Most of the images in this article were not originally intended for Wikipedia, but were designed to cater to the fantasies of the (mostly male) pornography audience. I think it's clear from the discussion above that everybody would consider it an improvement if the numbers of images were more evenly balanced between men and women, but no decent images of men in hogties have yet been uploaded. --Hogtied 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I dare say that Taxwoman is not the sole expert.  If she ties up a man, I'm sure she's interested in taking off all his clothes -- BAD TASTE!!!  Since you suggest the idea, Atom, why don't you yourself tie up those men who volunteer?61.18.170.16 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've tied up plenty of men and women in my time.  But, Taxwoman is my expert of preference, in this case. Atom 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Male / female

message: The images on this page are highly useful in depicting the nature of these hogties.  As has been stated many times, Wikipedia is not censored.  The suggestions that nudity detracts from the article and that the nudity should otherwise be removed are highly ignorant of this policy.  I would not be at all opposed to adding more images to this page, including those depicting men tied in hogties.  Nonetheless, such images would not necessarily replace the existing content, but rather a choice would need to be made as to whether the existing images are superior to the other images and as to the effects of them both being included on the state of the article.  From a policy standpoint, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the images as they are. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Whole Image Thing

message: I just saw this page... and I'm not a prude by anyone's standard, I've seen my share of bad $h*t and I'm 100% against cencorship and I think if you typed in or followed a link called "Hogtie Bondage" you lose the right to be shocked.(unless someone doesn't know what it means, then i guess that would be a consideration we could look at, how many people could have totally no idea what this article is and get shocked?)   ??? OPEN QUESTION  ???
Also Humanity is capable of some nasty sh*t and to not report it, expose it, understand it, is a mistake and won't make anyone behave any different anyway (not that i'm anti-nasty-sh*t)
sex, violence, violent sex, happens to most people and if you are an advocate of decency morals etc then you should work to prevent the actual violence out there and not focus on pictures of ritualised fake sexual violence, basically "get over it!" 
as for the nudity or barely dressed girls as long as it explains the nature of what the act is, even just slightly better and for only one person who doesn't get it, then its worth it. and none of these pictures seems shocking relative to the nature of the article, nor do they give a sense that the editors or viewers are somehow getting pleasure from the pictures. actually (I just looked at it again).. It would be better if there was a picture of a guy in there just to prevent anyone from saying its sexist etc and make it more balanced, I'm not gay or anything... "not that there is anything wrong with that!", it just makes it look more balanced, but then again aren't most tied up persons female? I don't know but I'd think so, and those doing the watching and tying up are men right? we could find some stats on that so if 99% of those hogtied are females then all the pics should be female. ??? OPEN QUESTION ???
also the picture of the girl looking at the camera is pretty.. "uplifting"... I don't know.... if you think that, sexuality fully expressed is more educational then go with that but if you feel that simply portraying the different positions is adequate then a picture with the model not looking at the camera would be less arousing, basically do you think an article about sex should show potent sexually arousing material which would likely arouse a viewer thus explaining it on a different level? or do you think it should be more cold and unarousing allowing a more abstract and matter of fact discription? Personally I can see the merits of both POV's...    ??? OPEN QUESTION ???
any thoughts?Esmehwp 09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MY TWO CENTS 

message: As someone who was actually around when this article was first split from the Hogtie article, it would be really great that whoever suggested the merger actually took the time to read through the discussions on both this page and the Hogtie article. If they did, they would realise that the article split as a solution to an issue concerning the sexual nature of the information concerning bondage hogties, and that people may be coming across this information by mistake. I can tell you the exact course of event that would follow should the merger proceed:
1. Article is merged into one, with important information chopped out, thus reducing the relevence of the article.
2. Images a deemed to be offensive and are removed, thus reducing the relevence of the article.
3. Information regarding the Bondage Hogtie are completly reduced to a minor category with a link to the article regarding "Fetishes", thus reducing the relevence of the article.
4. Wikipedia continues it's slide from being a "Compendium of all human knowledge", to just being a free and inaccurate copy of a real encylopedia, thus reducing the relevence of Wikipedia in general.
It always amazed me, why it is that people can't just look at something and say, "Yep, that's all fine, it never needs to be changed again". People are constantly needing to change everything, not to make it better, not to make it more accurate, but simply so they can put there stamp on it, to have influence, to have relevance.
Well I say to all of you who read this, keep this in mind....If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
203.214.65.251 (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  This article is perfect as it is, and to merge it would be a big mistake.  I refer many people to this article as an exemplary demonstration of the breadth of Wikipedia's wonder. -- Go Green Go White (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I oppose the merge also.  If there is not interest in merging by 26 Jul 2008, we should remove the merge tag as failed.  That is an arbitrary time selection, but gives people a month to comment. Atom (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Given that there has been no further discussion regearding the proposed merger, and that the continued presence of the merger panel on the article is polluting the flow of the article, I move that the merger proposal be marked as a failure should no one provide any reason for it by the 24th of August, 2008. --203.214.65.251 (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody wants the merger - this has been going on for far too long - nuke the tag!--Whipmaster (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion regarding the proposed merger

message: Add male pictures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.32.44 (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Hogtied_male.jpg is available as a mostly clothed male alternative to being a page only illustrated with nude women. Teahot (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Add male pictures

message: The link about Pretzel hogtie is redirected to this page itself. Has it to be removed ?--Sumail (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pretzel Hogtie

message: I've restored the rope hogtie back to the top of the page rather than in the "variants" section as it better illustrates what a classic rope hogtie entails, so better illustrates the opening description of a hogtie. I't would also appear that the image is simply of some persons GirlFriend and would like to make 15 minutes of fame for themselves rather than adding in anyway to the value of the article. Given that this image illustrates in a lesser fashion what a hogtie entails, and also given that the rope image has no trouble achieving this impression, then there is no need to change the image. Rule number one: if it ain't broke, don't fix it! If the current rope image is faulty and needs to be removed, please discuss here, otherwise it should stand. --203.214.67.177 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking your comments on board, I agree that the previous image is probably of somebody's girlfriend on 15 minutes of fame. Notwithstanding that, it is a better representation of a basic hogtie then the "extreme" image put in its place. There is a whole range of use of hogtie, not just the extreme form. The "basic" form should not be pushed aside.Ewawer (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Images Used

message: I just restored the external links. These both link to additional material which clearly ON TOPIC and adds to the article. The material looks to be copyright so it can't go in the main article and it is not authorative enough I would call it a reference. On 'taste and decency' I don't see the material in the links is any different to the content in the article - therefore no censorship.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionista (talk • contribs) 10:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with taste and decency. It's just not adding valuable information to the article. --Pjacobi (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Unless there are any objections, I would like to pare the images down to one or two. The rest will be available via the Commons link. I know we are not censored, but in the absence of any male pictures (there are none in Commons) we have to balance the educational value of the pictures that we have against the alienation of women readers. Women shouldn't feel like they've entered a men's locker room when they come to this page. --JN466 01:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jayen, as a person who is active and openly interested in alternative lifestyles, even I question the fact that there are multiple images for this article. I think it's valid to have them organized as a link to Commons and perhaps some websites (i.e. Shibari culture sites) that relate to the culture. It'd be great to have some men "tied up" as well for coverage - even in a male dominated world, I know that guys are getting tied up too! I also feel that the images are unnecessarily "vulgar" for Wikipedia. There is no reason why a topless scantily clad person needs to be bound. Missvain (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if any free license male bondage pictures could be found on Flickr or elsewhere. I agree the article should include images of both genders or else pare down the existing images so that it doesn't seem to be gratuitously catering to male hetero readers. Kaldari (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When the man is the submissive I think its a different thing that has his own article at Dominatrix--Neo139 (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Kaldari, yes, there are: http://malesubmissionart.com/ The photos there should be cc-by. There are a lot of bondage pictures and some have better quality than any of the ones used right now (sorry for posting anonymously) best, Lena  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.89.22 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Neo, hogties are not gender specific, let alone Dominate/submissive specific at times. I believe this article needs photographs from both genders, regardless of top/bottom interests. Missvain (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention men tie each other up also. Decrease # of photos. Just voyeurism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I put pics on wikicommons. Tempts me to look for a volunteer. Should I advertise it's for wikipedia? Can borrow a friends stuff. What fun! CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Do. I uploaded one of them at the time, but the licensing turned out not to be sufficient, and the blog owner did not respond to questions for clarification. --JN466 18:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ben hogtied ballgagged.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I just reinstated an external link. Article has two external links. Both appear to be material from commercial sources but they are both on topic and are clearly adding to the subject of article. Neither one links directly to any commercial site.
I think they are both legitimate as external links and should both stay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revisionista (talk • contribs) 07:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hogtie bondage. 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/20130715000509/http://esinem.com/articles/safety/positional-asphyxia to http://esinem.com/articles/safety/positional-asphyxia
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) 19:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified