Talk:BDSM/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Japan and the 5 to 10%

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)

I have removed the contentious text from the article:

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)

I don't know what the original text regarding Japan said, as it is now removed. But, the culture in Asia is usally called SMBD, and the emphasis is primarily on rope bondage. http://www.ds-arts.com/RopeArt/SMBD.html is a good reference for this. Atomaton 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

restructuring/refactoring

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)

sadism / masochism as mental illness

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)

Psychology

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)

reorganize

As nice as this article is, I'm wondering if it wouldn't make more sense to reorganize the BDSM and Sadism and Masochism pages: Outside the sadomasochistic subculture itself and maybe the internet, who has heard of "BDSM"? This term alway begs the question what to call the practitioners ("BDSMist?").

My suggestion would be to follow the convention that the Germans used with Datenschlag: Make the main article about consensual BDSM "Sadomasochism", which de facto would be the BDSM part, and make a side reference to "sadism, sexual" and "masochism, sexual", where the medical definitions from DSM-IV are treated (note that the APA doesn't really recognize sadomasochism as a paraphilia except in the sense that you can have fleas and lice at the same time). To be more exact, the dividing line is medical (the "B" criterium of DSM-IV) plus legal (the question of consensuality as used by countries like German where SM is legal). This also emphasizes the distinction between the SSC crowd and the paraphilias, which will be important once they get completely thrown out of DSM: All you have to do then is put a line about how the medical defintions are outdated in the medical parts.

In other words, the main trunk would be something like this:

Sadomasochism

• Defintion (with BDSM and link to sadism and masochisms a la APA
• Subgroupings (links to bondage (sexual) and all the other variants)
• History (science: Pico della Mirandola to Krafft-Ebing to Freud to Spengler; this includes concepts of disease; subculture: Eulenspiegel etc)
• Famous Sadomasochists (Rousseau [sp], Foucault, Madonna =8) ...)
• Cultural references (Story of O, Comix, Films like Mano Destra or Secretary, music like madonna (again?), Guns 'n Roses...)
• Legal situation (or entries by country? Spanner case in GB, legal in DE)
• Whatever else

And as short texts:

Sadism, sexual

• Medical definition as in DSM-IV

Masochism, sexual

• Medical definition as in DSM-IV

Given that a lot of the central scientific literature, especially things like Spenglers "Sadomasochisten und ihre Subkulturen" or Weinberg's texts all refer to "sadomasochism" and not BDSM, this should make the whole subject more accessable and less geeky to the normal user.

Yes, I can help do this, though I am new to Wikipedia. I'm German-English bilingual, so I should be able to help incorporate the best stuff from the Datenschlag site.

Scot W. 00:23, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

BDSM seems to be quite common, well-known term. If I had to, I'd probably use BDSMer, though if I had a choice I'd be more likely to phrase it a different way (BDSM practictioner, perhaps). Exploding Boy 15:27, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

First of all that 5-10 percent of the US population figure needs to be explained. Second of all, this article seems to be biased towards heterosexual couplings. From many sources I've read, the homosexual BDSM scene is much much larger (although I'm not sure if they are including simply "leather men" leathering/chaps wearing men).

Just have a look at how BDSM are depicted in various media, there wouldnt be that many producers of male dominant - female submissive material if it wasnt for the fact that it is the most common variety, with dominant female submissive male as runner up on second place.

---

Cite please

"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)

My edit summary on April 30, 2005: Lowercase "dominant"

My edit summary didn't make sense because of an error. I had lowercased occurences of the word "Dominant" because it looks stylistically and grammatically bad, although I do know a few in the community who prefer that case-tense. Then again, it might really have been a typo! =} addesso 03:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It was not a typo but it is a very widespread practice to use uppercase for the dominant person, yet I feel no reason for it to be changed since the person reading this do so to be informed without that kind of typograhical confusion.

Top and bottom articles/definitions.

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)

There should also be a broader reference to TPE (Total Power Exchange) and the term 'Slave' (as a parallel to 'Submissive'). Atomaton 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Crime?

Is BDSM really a crime everywhere else than the Nordic countries, Germany and Japan? This is really amazing news. — JIP | Talk 18:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Certainly in the UK, masochism which leaves injury or marks seems to be illegal (see http://www.spannertrust.org/ ), but not BDSM in general. I feel that the section needs rewording - BDSM covers all sorts of things such as tying someone up or giving someone orders, and it seems rather misleading to suggest that all of these things are illegal in most countries. The problem area appears to be S&M. 86.6.172.191 22:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes its too strong on the part suggesting BDSM might be illegal almost everywhere. S&M are outlawed in many countries and areas yes.

I agree strongly that this entire section needs reworking, "tying someone up or giving someone orders" are missing just as you say. Yet there are many others also, those who are into humilation play. On the other side of the scale are those into extreme varieties of bondage, mummification, chains cuffs and irons without wanting to experience pain, being molested or that someone use strong words against them whatsoever. The main part of the text seems to assume that BDSM practitioners are swinging, partygoing and constantly running the risk of catching STI. Do any of this apply to the BDSM couples who have long lasting, monogamous relationships spanning decades and sometimes an entire lifetime?

Top/bottom sexes in mainstream depiction of BDSM

I just came to think about the sexes of the top and bottom of mainstream depictions of BDSM. Male top/female bottom seems to be the most common, followed by female top/female bottom and then by female top/male bottom. But I can't remember ever seeing a depiction of male top/male bottom (if we don't count male homosexual erotica like Tom Of Finland). Am I wrong, or does mainstream erotica always need women in some place? — JIP | Talk 30 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)

External Links

Links removed from main page and copied here:

• One slave's blog [1]
• soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm newsgroup FAQ
• uk.people.bdsm newsgroup FAQ
• www.sandm.com - fiction, personals, cultural reporting
• BDSM Personal ads and chat on alternativealbany.com
• BDSM Personals and Community on Bondage.com
• Wipipedia - a wiki for the BDSM and Fetish lifestyle
• Satyricon Madison Wisonsin
• The New England Leather Alliance
• D/s Lifestyle resources.
• SM history timeline, translated from Datenschlag site
• Masters And slaves Together (USA)

Please discuss here prior to adding these links back to the main page. brenneman^(t)(c) 23:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The personals dont belong on the main page, Wikipedia is not a dating service.

Those that might be brought back as links : Lifestyle resources, Masters And slaves Together, SM history timeline & Wipipedia. They are informative, at least to some degree and so relevant.

Under 'Support groups' Alt.com are listed. Thats not a support group for crying out loud, but a commercial pay service for personals and to view certain galleries.

I concur that it is a pay service. But -- It is very broadly used by the BDSM community. Atomaton 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

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)

Agreed. This makes no sense. getaaron

Didn't make any sense to me either. I changed it around somewhat, so it now reads "This emphasis on informed consent and safety is also known as SSC (safe, sane and consensual), though others prefer the term RACK (Risk Aware Consensual Kink), which places more emphasis on acknowledging the fact that all activities are potentially risky." -Ocicat

Abusive BDSM Relationships

Our article contains:

1. 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)

I agree that this is unsourced. I replaced it with a weaker, but unarguably true statement. Catamorphism 08:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sick Discussion - Why not keeping the content online ? Is that the Freedom of GNU Content ?!

New and Old Guard

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)

Complete rewrite of Sadism and Masochism

The entry to Sadism and masochism has been completely rewritten based on a medical POV. It now refers to this page for most things consensual and subcultury.

--Scot W. Stevenson 03:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone think we should still have a specific article for consensual S&M (like we do for the other aspects of BDSM)? I.e., so we would have one article for the medical side, and one form the consensual BDSM site (again, like we do for some other BSDM articles). S&M is not synonymous with BDSM, it is a subset, and it seems better to focus here on things related to BDSM in general rather than it being the only place to describe S&M. Mdwh 01:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. We also have a D/s article, so there should also be one for S&M. --Conti|✉ 01:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether the old content of Sadism and masochism should be moved to something like Sadism and masochism (BDSM), or whether we should revert back to the older version, and the medical version either put into a subsection of that article, or a new article. Opinions? Mdwh 19:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am deeply offended by the idea that BDSM is a medical condition. Danny Lilithborne 22:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sadism and Masochism can be a medical condition. Because practioners (of BDSM) have been accused of being people with a medical condition, it is important that the article explains that forms of Sadism and Masochism can in fact be consensual activity, and NOT a medical condition. Atomaton 03:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I’m a Masochist, and I happen toward the "nurture" side of the age-old binary, however I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "medical condition." You say you're offended, so I presume, for you, a medical condition is a congenital defect; I, however, fail to see the difference between a congenital agent on the one hand, and the formative acquisition of B or D or S or M on the other. Either way, the articulation of BDSM is just that -- a chronic, deviant, and, to be frank, weird and altogether unaccountable behavior.

I repeat: I Am A Masochist. I suppose I'm going on the assumption that psychology is a medical science, its shortcomings notwithstanding. If we accept that, taking offense at the claim "BDSM is a medical condition" is something like taking offense at the claim "a hunchback is a medical condition." Sure, hunchbacks are just as good as the rest of us, and there hunchy-backs are an inexorable part of them, sure, it developed with them over time, it wasn't by design, and it isn't a crippling condition, per se. At the same time though, should I ever chance upon a magic lamp and have a chat with its genie, the dearth of hunch in my back won't enter the fray of our conversation - my psychosexual disorder just might. Furthermore, if BDSM is neither a psychological nor a medical condition, it's a positive choice. If it's a positive choice, we stand in opposition the argument that homosexuality is a painful trait, rather than a conscious choice. But hey, let's not forget, you're offended; i can sympathize "medical condition" just sounds so anasthetic. In any case, we haven't all day, and, as a community, we BDSMers proceed to argue that homosexuality is a positive choice, that anxiety and unease, OCD, facial asymmetry, and a score of other painful, alienating conditions are matters of choice, and that a sexual attraction to negative bodily sensations is not only quite normal, mind you, it's objectively preferable to conventional sex. Is it right, or even reasonable, to cast aside the argument responsible for soothing and normalizing the lives of millions of gays, lesbians et cetera, because the term "medical condition" is aesthetically unpalatable, even unnerving? Coming to terms with BDSM is hard - I know- and to that rare breed of ladies and gents who manage to accept BDSM unconditionally, conceive it on the level of a freckley ass or a hairy chest, before promptly moving on, I offer my applause. With the rest of the BDSM world, I empathize. I hope to come to terms with my sexual proclivities, and I hope to do so sooner rather than later, but I see no benefit in denying BDSM’s status as a medical condition. Psychosexual disorder, genetic trait, learned behavior, - bahh! - call it what you will: it’s undesirable and incurable. It's a hair's breadth short of being an all out "disease." 11:12, 13 July 2006 67.173.156.84

Your feelings are genuine and your opinions about this are relevant from your own context. Not everyone would agree, or have the same perspective. Most BDSMers don't have any problem with their sexual proclivities. The ones that do, have a problem because they have been taught by religion that they should not have sexual proclivities at all, and that they should feel shame and disgust when they do. The issue is the perversion of perfectly normal sexual interests by religious interests, not that there is something wrong with you or I. You suggest that BDSM is a medical condition and undesirable, and that may be your experience, but it sure isn't mine. If you have a sexual interest and it is accepted in society (for instance, a strong desire to have sex on your wedding day -- not for procreation, but for sexual pleasure) it is not a medical condition, but if it is a sexual desire that is frowned upon by society (spanking, or rape fantasy) then it is a physcological, and therefore a medical condition? Why not use the standards that Psychological professionals use, such as DSM-IV? If the behaviour itself interferes with your life in bad ways, it could be classified as a disorder, if it is something that does not interfere, then it is not a discorder. You make an excellent case that in your situation it may be a disorder. It is less desirable, and you say you want to change it, and that you are having a hard time changing it, or coming to terms with it. Also, that perhaps it affects your life in ways that are not good for you. Just because in your case it may, in fact, be a disorder, does not mean that therefore, anyone who is a masochist must also have a psychological disorder. Plenty of masochists funtion perfectly well in life, are well adjusted, happy, and feel completely comfortable with their masochism, chosen or not. It is not a disorder for them, and therefore, not a medical condition. Atom 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethics?

I'm noticing that there's no dicussion of BDSM ethics which serve to distinguish between BDSM and garden-variety exploitation and abuse.

Shall we? --Firewheel 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know... look right above the TOC. There you find both SSC and RACK.--J-Star 22:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Followed both - and while they both serve as introductions to the fact that there is an ethic (and woudn't personally say the two are the only forumlations) that apply, neither qualifies as an article about the ethics of BDSM.

Why should there be such an article you might well ask?

Because it's being explored in popular culture, in shows such as CSI, Law and Order, etc, and it would be nice to have some real ansers.

But that's the first approximation. Without making any claim to being a sociologist, BDSM is the first minority sexual orientation I am aware of to take on sexual ethics as a core central, and now public aspect of community identity. --Firewheel 01:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct, the question non BDSM persons always ask, is how the dominant can have so much power over someone else without misusing it. And so the ethics ruling us dominants are at the very core of how to manage relationships like this. In short a paragraph about etic would be very enlightening and save a few of us from a lot of strange questions.

There's also Consent (BDSM). Mdwh 01:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Czech links?

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)

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)

Historical Origins

I'm refraining from puting the following information directly into the article since I'm no native speaker. Nevertheless it seems quite interessting:

From the German wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM#Historische_Wurzeln): "... One of the earliest sources (for BDSM...)is a etruscan tomb in Tarquinia. Inside the Tomba della Fustigazione (Tomb of Chastisement, End of 6th Century b.c.) two men are portrait hiting a woman barehanded and with a rod during the Game of Love. see here. Another source of early flagellation is to be found in the 6th book of the "Satires" (?) of the antique roman poet Juvenal (1st., or 2nd century a.d.), another one is to located in the "Satyricon" of Petronius, in which a deliquent is flagged for sexual arrousal.

The Kamasutra shows four different kind of strokes and indicates the related "Targetzones" as well as the lustdriven cries of pain by the bottom. The early indian text already puts emphasis on the fact that biting, pinching and hitting during intercourse always demands for the partners full consent since pain isn't everyones cup of tea. From this perspective, the Kamasutra can be considered history's first tratidional written text on BDSM-practices and safety-rules. Further texts with sadomasochistic referencing show up during the following centuries over and over again."

Hope you can make use of the info. ;-) Regards. nemissimo.

Removed image.

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.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• More importantly, the amount of images in this article is beyond excessive many of them add nothing to the article at all, are decorative only and some only indirectly related. This is the first thing that should be considered rather than who uploaded the image and the quality. Does this article need even more images? --neon white talk 20:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as they ad information? Sure it does...--84.152.125.1 (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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)