Talk:BDSM/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

First I would like to point out that deifning this as an illness is as insane as classifying homosexuality as an illness. Because like homosexuality it is a natural process that has evolved over time. Let me explain, homosexuality is created as the brain developes in fetus stage by an excessive amount of sexual hormones of one type. Either by the fetus own genes or by influence from a to be sibling's production of the hormone. Or by abnormal temperature in the surroundings. These two factors decides the sex and sexual instincts of the fetus. Sexual instincts comes from developement of the brain which either preserve or cause automatic cell death to different regions of the brain's neurological pathways that are created and manages sexual behaviour. It is not an illness because in most egg laying animals temperature is vital to create different sexes and hormonal regulations have then evolved as a patch as mammals constant tempereatures otherwise would eliminates this process. Which means that the brain get a scale of female and male traits mixed depending on the concentration's of the hormones. Creating massive diversity.

Like homosexuality where the brain is developed differenly due to natural aspects as demonstrated. Why pain is a sexual turn-on has it's explanations in the brain as well. It happens to be that the regions managing sexual pleasure and managing pain overlaps and uses the same signal subtance to communicate changes. So obviously they influence each other. For some people it's quite a profound overlap, which, explains how some individuals associate pain with pleasure.

For the sexual acts of dominating or being dominated I belive it can be dependent on how much male trait the individual possesses. Males are hardwired to be in positions of dominations and otherwise because it has been strongly linked to survival for both sexes. Many physical objects could be used for domination/domited explaining fetishes such as chastity belts, chains, hoods and so on.

For explaning why corsets, latex, boots and so on is sexually stimulating for males is quite easy. The male's sexually instinct is trigged by the female's body shape. Shown in a multitude of research by ranking or brain scans. These objects would enhance the parts of the female figure that is sexually triggering. Creating an even stronger stimuli for the brain to react on.

Explaning the more gross as wearing diapers, pooing and so on. Is probably best done by considering the curious nature that humans have. In these cases curiocity for the forbidden is probably the best explanation. Although I can not really explain it as a biologist and specifically a molecular biologist. Lord Metroid 20:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I have two comments. One is that your answer deals mainly with neurobiological theories explainning sadomasochism. I am also interested in pure psychological ones.

The other comment is about defining sadomasochism as a mental illness. This is a complex issue that I do not have a concrete opinion about (see Sadism and masochism as medical terms, but I would like to respond to your arguments, that merely explain the biological processes leading to a person becoming a homosexual.

First, you relate to sexual inclination as being totally dictated by processes undergone by the fetus. Homosexuality is a condition with a multifactorial etiology, that includes biological and psychological factors that act during different phases in the development of a human being. Clearly, one can not know whether a newborn will grow into a homosexual adult, because its future experiences will effect this outcome.

Second, explaining the biological processes underlying a certain condition doesn't prove it is not a illness. Obviously, many diseases have known etiologies and can be explained by processes udergone by the fetus, but that, of course, doesn't mean they are not diseases. You also argue that the brain has a spectrum of male and female characteristics, and that homosexuality is merely an extreme of that spectrum. That argument, also doesn't prove it is not a illness, because many diseases are nothing more than an extreme form of a normal phenomenon, e.g. high blood pressure.

I'd also like to point out that although homosexuality has been removed from the DSM, mainly for political reasons, Sexual Masochism and Sexual Sadism remain official diagnoses, giving that the symptoms "...cause clinically significant distress or impairmant...". Ehudzel 14:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I explored some minor aspects of this dynamic myself in my youth. That said, I do not share the "if it feels good, do it" orientation of this page. Space should be reserved in this page for a more critical (if loving) view. "BDSM" is often reflective of a lack of self-respect, excessive self-criticism, a lack of self-worth, feelings of inadequacy, and/or a need for control, and other minor psychological difficulties. These are not "illnesses" in some clinical sense, but neither are they healthy -- they are things that any good mother would help a child want to overcome, to achieve real self-confidence and fulfillment. The behavior need not be condemned, nor glorified, nor anesthetized, in explaining the psychological dynamics. There are reasons why most people do not discuss this behavior with their parents, or encourage it among adolescents, and the reasons are not simply "oppressive social more." (Besides which, some mores exist for good reasons.) I'm intimidated to edit the page as my intent is not to provoke some edit war nor to make devotees uncomfortable or feel criticized. But someone should point out the more subtle psychological dynamics. The 'itch' that BDSM 'scratches' may often be symptomatic of underlying issues which can be resolved in a more productive, loving manner.

Let us not forget that professional psychologists/psychiatrists and even the DSM are not some ultimate arbiter on what is healthy or "normal" human behavior -- if only life were that simple! :-) As one (extreme!) example, read up on apotemnophiliac and Jungian psychologist Gregg M. Furth, PhD. (N.B. this is not to equate any or all BDSM with apotemnophilia, the point here is simply not to trust all professional psychologists and not all "if it feels good, do it" advice!) Furth is highly regarded within his academic field, co-authored books with Elizabeth Kubler-Ross,[http://www.amazon.com/Amputee-Identity-Disorder-Information-Recommendations/dp/1588203905/ref=sr_1_3/102-5569189-6214564?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173460201&sr=1-3] was head of various psychological societies, etc. Yet he had a fetish with amputating his leg! Worse, he abused his role as trusted mental-health 'expert' and facilitated someone else in 'achieving' this fetish, using a disbarred doctor (John Ronald Brown). The patient/victim had his leg amputated in a hotel room, and died of it. See the LA Weekly, "Why Did He Cut Off That Man's Leg?", by Paul Ciotti, Wednesday, December 15, 1999[1] Gregg Furth is a reminder that sometimes common sense is superior to supposed-experts in psychology when it comes to providing love and guidance. MomKnowsBest 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"There are reasons why most people do not discuss this behavior with their parents, or encourage it among adolescents" - I think most people don't discuss sex in general with their parents, or encourage it among adolescents... There's nothing special about BDSM here.

Remember that any criticisms of BDSM should be from notable and reliable sources, and not original research/personal opinion. Mdwh 01:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, most people I know of who've "experimented" with BDSM (admittedly only a few that I know of), to them it was a naughty fantasy game, not a true "need for control" or "lack of self-worth". There is a reason many people who engage in BDSM fantasies call it "play" and it's not just PR; for some of them at least it appears to be an accurate description of the activity.

Also, as a strongly lesbian-leaning female who was completely heterosexual (and not particularly asexually het, either) on up through puberty until she fell in love with a girl (and who can still get turned on by heterosexual erotica, but does not normally feel much attraction for males in real life), I can safely say that "fetal hormones" are not sufficient to explain ALL instances of homosexual, or indeed general sexual behavior in humans. I have seen and heard of that research, and I find it interesting, however the version I came across only applied it for one thing to homosexual males; not bisexuals or homosexual females. And for another thing, it also was fairly recent research that IIRC has not been looked into much yet behind the initial study. Also, again, even if there are hormonal explanations for a lot of gay and transgendered people's behavior, the fact is that "sexual orientation" in humans as a whole is far too complex to boil down the behavior of every single individual to the action of a single hormone in the womb. You state this still-controversial, somewhat incomplete research as if it were indisputable fact that covers all concievable situations. It is not. Therefore I think it it safe to say there is considerable POV on this page. Between the "pushing one explanation of homosexuality above all others" and the implication that women can only be dominant if they have "male traits" (something about the way it's worded just gets to me. I think it's the idea that it's a "male" trait, considering that in a number of species, the females are far more aggressive and dominating than males, and a huge number of species have females that are extremely aggressive when protecting young or dominant in some way when taking care of young, which is a very female-associated thing in case you hadn't noticed)... oi.

BTW, switching to response to another poster Ehudzel, "mostly for political reasons"? Wow, POV much? Not saying you have to accept homosexuality, that's your opinion whether or not to and you're welcome to it, but unless you've got valid sources that say "yeah it was only removed for political reasons all of us in the mental health profession really do still think it's a mental illness as opposed to a wide range of behavior that is not universally considered acceptable in many societies", keep comments like that off Wikipedia, please. This place is supposed to be neutral. 4.238.17.86 18:31, 24 May 2007 (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)

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)

I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful response to my inflammatory remarks. I agree with much of your analysis (i.e. BDSM is only harmful/undesirable if it interferes with one's life); however, here and there, I take issue with your interpretation of sadism/masochism, et cetera, on the level of "categories" and "definitions." Our differences are certainly not profound, my caustic style notwithstanding. You've observed, for example, that many masochists function perfectly well in life, are well adjusted, happy, and feel completely comfortable with their masochism, chosen or not, and that, for these individuals, masochism is not a disorder and therefore not a medical condition. I would argue that it is a disorder, albeit one they've overcome, and that it remains a medical condition, not because society frowns on the behavior, but because their ability to form a lasting, fulfilling relationship with a sexual partner is severely restricted by their sensuality. A boring heterosexual male, unfettered by fetishism, confronts, in the course of a day, a favorable selection of potential mates. The average male masochist confronts, in the course of a year, perhaps a half-dozen individuals who could sexually satisfy him, and be themselves satisfied in the execution of say, a rape fantasy or a hearty spanking. Of those half-dozen women, how many live within 100 miles, have lived for as many years - give or take a decade - or are even remotely compatible with Billy, our average male masochist? You might easily rebut this mawkish argument by pointing out that most people, gay or straight, never do find that one true love to grow old beside, so the BDSM lifestyle doesn't present an enormous sacrifice. And you'd be right. Personally, I don't expect or intend to "change" my sensual proclivities, and, compared to the guy I was 5 years ago when I left home for college, I am at relative peace with myself. My girlfriend (who, although it's early on, I can honestly see lying beside me 50 years from now) has a wee bit of a switch in her, and I think we could have some fun with it - but do I see in her the flip side of my own freakyness? No. Would I burder her with the discomfort of having to attempt to satisfy that side of my sexuality? Absolutely not. Does it matter? Probably not, because I love her, and, given the choice of my soul mate and a fair sex life or a partner I can hardly relate to and an inestimable sex life (because, let's face it, the vanilla mainstream will never know what it means to have an orgasm AND that avalanche of endorphins that render a satisfied masochist fairly hazardous on the road), I choose the former. Some BDSMers don't have that option, as, for some BDSMers, the pain Is the sexual release. For those people, conventional sex is literally impossible,and a long term relationship is extremely difficult to maintain. Even if an individual of that sort does adjusted well to their masochism, there is still infinite solitude to tackle.

I was a little inebriated for my first post, and I would like to apologize if I came off a touch insensitive.

I can see that Masochism affects your life in difficult ways. I think the reason that I don't feel that it is a medical condition, is that it does not affect everyone in negative ways. Yes, it is hard under "normal" circumstances to find the right life partner. As a BDMSer it is still challenging. It seems where you life there is no local BDSM community. That can make a big difference. In my case, I have three long-term partners, all women, and all heavily involved in BDSM. In my community I have the opportunity to meet more than a hundred or more people at a munch once a month, and there is at least one event a week, may times more, that I can go to to meet partners with my interests. So, I don't see it as a disorder, or as something that interferes with relationships, or me or my partners finding sexual satisfaction. If your definition of disorder applied, then anyone who varies in their interests or sexual pecularities too far, therebye making it more difficult to find others that "deviated" from the norm, then a major proportion of the population would have a disorder of one kind or another. I think that there is a broad spectrum of unusual people in the world, and the level at which they deviate from "normal" has to interfere with their life in order for it to be a disorder. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to do so on our talk pages (User_talk:Atomaton) or at my email atomaton@h-tmail.c-m. Atom 00:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But by that logic, homosexuality is a disorder too, because it makes it harder to find someone suitable amongst a random sample of people. And whilst there may be some who find "conventional sex literally impossible", I'd imagine this is a minority of BDSMers. Mdwh 15:45, 16 July 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.

Thanks to the English wiki-team working on BDSM

The German BDSM article reached "featured"-Status yesterday. It includes a lot of scientific, cultural and historical information from a broad variety of sources. Thanks a lot for plenty of inspiration and a lot of valuable resources on the eng:wiki. Regards from Munich.--Nemissimo 17:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

See talk:BDSM/de for a local copy under translation. Feel free to help in that translation. Some portions of the translated copy, with pictures, and many references, can hopefully be integrated into this english version. Atom 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read it and it's really a great article. Good work and a well deserved featured status. This article could benefit a great deal from extensive translating. Sloan21 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Structure discussion again

I'm considering a restructure of the article, summarizing earlier comments, and adding what material can be gleaned from the German pages. Also, I'd like to archive this talk page and start anew as much of it is old or no longer applicable.

Existing structure (13 July 2006)

Contents
1 Psychological 1.1 Psychiatric view
2 Roles 2.1 Dominant behaviour 2.2 Submissive behaviour 2.3 Tops and bottoms 2.4 Switching
3 Safety
4 Conflict resolution
5 Various practices
6 Physiological
7 Other points
8 Terminology
9 Etymology
10 History
11 International
12 See also 12.1 Lists of BDSM authors, artists and photographers 12.2 Publishers (fiction and non-fiction) 12.3 Support groups
13 Documentaries
14 Movies
15 References and further reading
16 External links

German page (13 July 2006) Table of contents
1 Fundamentals
2 Safety
3 Partial aspects 3.1 Bondage/Discipline 3.2 Domination and tender 3.3 Sadomasochismus of 3.4 Physical aspects
4 Kinds of relations 4.1 Play relations of 4.1.1 Widespread role models 4.2 Aussereroti BDSM 4.3 Professional services
5 Scene, subculture and public of 5.1 Symbols of 5.2 Prejudices 5.3 Coming out 5.4 SM parties
6 Experience and psychology 6.1 Occurrences 6.2 Psychological classification
7 History 7.1 Historical Roots 7.2 Leather Movement 7.3 InterNet 7.4 Term history
8 Legal status 8.1 Germany 8.2 Austria 8.3 Switzerland 8.4 Great Britain
9 BDSM in culture and media 9.1 press and TV 9.2 Belletristik of 9.3 Special books 9.4 Film and television 9.5 Podcasts of 9.6 Magazines
10 See also
11 Web Links
12 Sources

I'm not suggesting that we change the format to the German page format, but I think that we can incorporate some structural elements and sources in a way that will make our page much better. Also one thing I liked was the larger number of pictures on the german page, and I think we could bring some of those over.

I agree that the general structure needs improvement. For me the most interesting point is psychology though; 6.2 in German, but the very first section in English. I guess that says a lot about different perception, if people think it's nessecary to clarify that it's not a mental illness in one of the first sentences. Sloan21 22:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The development of the article is slowing down more and more. This is obviosly because the actuall structure is highly insufficient. I believe it is time to modify it. Is anyone interessted in developing a new concept? As mentioned above it could be something entirely unique, also I believe the German featured article's structure solves most of the problems... ;-) I'll be glad to give a hand with the translations.--Nemissimo II 18:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

While this is a great article, it suffers from a lack of verifiable sources. Mentions are made of the BDSM communities motivations and the popularity of various practices (ie stoplight safewords), and legal standing without providing any sources. Also the 'community' is referred to, but doesn't say whether it is referring to the US community, Western BDSM community in general or is conflating all of these. Sources would go a long way towards making all this clearer. Ashmoo 03:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To make it clearer which bits are lacking sources, I've added fact tags to the legal bit, and moved the unsourced tag down to the Safety section - were there other parts you thought lacking in sources? I presume community is the BDSM community in general(?) Mdwh 11:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the lack of sources is because much of the page was apparently translated from the German version, which may well have German-language (but not English-language) sources... 4.235.27.186 21:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

BDSM Triskelion

It seems we can use the symbol on wikipedia becaues its much older than stated initially. Could anyone please check this website The Myth of the BDSM Symbol and the information given there? --Nemissimo II 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a copyright claim on the symbol. Various people dispute the claim. It isn't our job to decide who is right or wrong. But, from a cursory analysis, artwork is protected by copyright in the U.S. when created. The triskelion is an ancient design. The BDSM symbol is similar but different that that. (circle around the image, holes in each region, curve of the "leg" going in the opposite direction, coloration choice.) Perhaps that makes it unique. Such changes are what makes one piece of artwork different from another. Would any design or artwork based on a common shape, or symbol be non-copywritable? Is any art with a triangle, a square, a five pointed star, a six-pointed star, a cross or crucifix inherently non-copyrightable? If it is a matter of judgement, determination, or discretion, that isn't our job. Atom 11:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright only covers a particular work - it doesn't not cover something as vague as a symbol. So if I draw a cross, you can't make a copy of my work, but you can certainly draw your own cross. If someone has drawn a Triskelion and given permission to use it, then it's okay. Mdwh 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest getting in contact with the artist and get a statement regarding the use of the symbol on Wikipedia. I have been in touch with the person before and the response was most acommodating. I would expect the reply to Wikipedia to be the same. --J-Star 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. Perhaps is asked, he will allow it to be used for free use in MediaWiki Commons? Atom 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that very strongly please READ The Myth of the BDSM Symbol ;-)--Nemissimo II 18:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What? One biased page? That is hardly conclusive. --J-Star 19:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The correspondence between the page's owner and the triskellion's claimed copyrightholder is quite interesting and might open new perspectives on the matter. ;-) --Nemissimo II 20:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow what you are saying. The Triskellion is a basic shape, and is not copyrighted, nor copyrightable. Graphics and artwork are based on basic shapes all of the time. The question for copyright lawyers is whether the design is unique and original, or not. (and not whether there are basic shapes, like circles, squares or triskellions in the unique design). The question for wikipedians is, "Does someone claim a copyright". (not whether we like, or choose to agree with the claim -- or not) Atom 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if you read the difference in the article between trademark and copyright and then the foot note references, you will find that the original person claiming copyright to the symbol would have been denied copyright based on the fact that familiar symbols or designs can not be copyrighted. This person could have trademarked it for his commercial use. However to be copyrighted as a "piece of art" it would have to fall under derivative works. Per the U. S. Copyright office you will find the symbol was not changed enough to be consider a derivative work and it is certainly not an "original work" including the making it out of “metal” and having “holes” in the symbol has been used for centuries by others per the copyright claimer’s web site. Further the one who claimed to hold the copyright admits in the emails that he only claimed it under a nick name and an email addy, thus making any legal claim of copyright impossible to prove and now would have no prima facievalue in an infringement suit to enforce it. Add to that any time someone has stood up to the person who claimed copyright the person claiming copyright did nothing to attempt to protect the copyright legally including filing it with the copyright office. It comes down to simply does Wikipedia or any other sites want to give this man “free advertising”. The best way to handle this is exactly the way Wikipedia has been handling this by showing the symbol with the copyright notice and the [link showing the copyright is disputed. Rose 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for all this detailed information. "Legal questions" are sometimes quite difficult to comprehend for non native speakers. ;-)--Nemissimo II 12:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the "atruerose" article, yet again. Also, I have spoken several times with the person claiming Copyright. Firstly, wanting it to be non-copyrightable, or a patent issue doesn't make it so. Secondly, a person DOES claim copyright, and he clearly says that his desire is that it be used for the BDSM community, and 'not' public domain.

It is not our job to resolve copyright disputes. There is a copyright claim. Issue is clear, it can't be in Wikipedia since copyright owner (claimant) does not release it for public use. Atom 15:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I am confused here, just the other day as I posted my thoughts on Aug. 20th; the symbol was on Wikipedia, uploaded by the person claiming copyright, with a description and signed by the person with his email address. In fact I have read in other places where he pointed out that it was posted on Wikepedia thus giving more credence to his copyright. Has he now asked that it be removed because of the dispute in copyright? If so that is very interesting that he himself loaded it and gave his "emblem project definition" and then once below the picture of the emblem it stated that the copyright was disputed, he would take it down or request it be removed. Has he, or did Wikipedia take it down or is it still up on Wikipedia? Rose22:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I'd like to use the symbol. Realizing that it is copyrighted, I sent an email to Quagmyr to ask if he would give permission. I told him that giving limited permission was not sufficient for Wikipedia, that it had to be GFDL, or copyrighted, but all rights given for it to be used for any purpose. He said he gave permission for it to be used for "fair use", and according to his website ("Free for the BDSM community to use, but not for commerial purposes.") He did not ask for it to be removed. I was hoping that he would go to creative commons, or give permission for unlimited use, so that we could display it here.

He also stated that his original intention was for it to be used as a symbol for fellow members of the BDSM community to reognize one another, but "vanilla" people would not know the meaning. A kind of "open secret" as it were. His implication was that posting it on Wikipedia was contrary to that, as it would be more recognized by non-BDSM folk. Atom 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does someone have a link to the particular graphical icon we are talking about? (You cannot copyright a concept of a particular drawing, only an actual piece of work you yourself have created.) The question is not whether there is a "copyright claim" (by that logic, I could say I claim copyright on every image on Wikipedia) - the issue is whether we have established we have permission to use a particular graphical image. Mdwh 02:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And if a particular image is in dispute, why not get someone to draw a Triskelion symbol for us? It doesn't look that hard a symbol to draw... Mdwh 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know of one graphic designer that did just that, and Quagmyr has admitted it was not the "official emblem" and he could not claim it, it is done in gold, I also have a copy of one that is embroidered with leaves and red roses, again very able to recognize but not claimed by Quagmyr. A funny example is now Qyaqmyr is now selling jewelry not based off of "his official emblem" but based off of another jeweler's creation.... I think he has long known he does not own the copyright.... If anyone one wants to see the several examples that people have sent me just post that here and I will check back in a couple of days. The symbol is so easy to recognize now that any triskelion with dots or holes in it out of a gold or silver color is thought to be the "emblem" which does make some ancient civilizations a tad upset that the emblem they have used for thousands of years is now being used for an alternative lifestyle... Rose16:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Atom's position that there should not be a cross reference to the BDSM Emblem article (which would benefit from some of the documentation of the controversy from here, btw) isn't bourne out by the number of emblem manufacturers referenced in the ATR Myth page mentioned above, UK vendors like http://www.richardlarsen.co.uk/Adult_Jewellery/gallery.php3 then select "BDSM", organisations like http://www.kinklusive.org.uk/publicity#flyers , and other reference works like http://public.diversity.org.uk/deviant/sscodes.htm As I see it, the question of what copyrights Quagmyr owns beyond his original GIFs is entirely separate from the number of people using triskelions-with-dots as a BDSM symbol. Tanos 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Artists

Is the "Artists" section really necessary? As it stands, it looks like a hodgepodge of links to sites of artists with vaguely BDSM themes, and the "songs" and "music videos" sections are even worse. It's barely encyclopedic. It should either be deleted, or rewritten with notability and verifiability in mind. Danny Lilithborne 09:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been a concern of mine. I have wanted for some time to get around to making it a bit more organized. I will add this to the list of tasks at:
WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality

Atom 12:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It could also do with being moved to a new article perhaps, to cut down on the article size here? We also have similar issues with a long list at Bondage (BDSM) (and another list of fiction at Sadism and masochism) - possibly that could be merged here (or to the new article)? Mdwh 16:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just trimmed off the entries which don't appear to be notable, and made it refer to the articles rather than websites. Mdwh 16:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Salo

Hi there. It may be just me, but I think it's rather weird to list Salo amongst the BDSM-orientated movies. This movie is, after all, supposed to be an allegory of dictatorial regimes in Italy, and I don't think the movie was made to really pleasure anyone. If this gets listed because there's bondage in it, or because there are things in it that the "mainstream crowd" generally doesn't enjoy, than why not list any movie in which somebody gets handcuffed, of why not list any movie that contains any gore? I may not know a damn thing about the subject; maybe that's the problem, but IMHO "Salo" has absolutely squat to do with BDSM. Greetings RagingR2 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

- 10-4 to that. It's extremely creepy to list "Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma" as as a BDSM resource. It's not about D/s, it's about fascism, and the "D/s" in this film is NOT consensual. This is not a movie about BDSM. It's a movie in which the "heroes" commit rape and torture of children. ElizaBarrington 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Temporary removal

The following information is slowing this articles development while being barely encyclopedic. It's neither theoretacily well funded nor nearly complete.--84.152.211.223 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Music

Artists

• Adam and the Ants - "Beat my Guest"
• Alice in Chains
• The Cure
• Dead Can Dance
• Depeche Mode
• Die Form
• Enigma
• Eurythmics - "Sweet Dreams"
• Garbage
• Genitorturers - "Pleasure in Restraint", "House of Shame"
• Korn - "Beat It Upright" ("Yes I'm ready for a good flogging baby")
• Leonard Cohen - "I'm Your Man"
• Lords of Acid
• Madonna Albums "Sex", "Erotica"
• Marilyn Manson
• Nine Inch Nails - "Happiness in Slavery", "Head like a Hole", "Closer", "Sanctified", "Sin"
• Pearl Jam - "Satan's Bed"
• Peaches - "Downtown"
• Placebo
• Skinny Puppy
• Velvet Underground "Venus In Furs"
• The Smiths

Songs

• Puddle of Mudd song Control has the line "I like it when you chain me to the bed"
• Eve 6 song Inside Out contains the line "Tie me to the bedpost."
• Stroke 9 called Do It Again has the line "I can be anything that you want me to be and you can have me in every position that you dreamed." as well as "Let me do what I want to do with you. Let me tie you down, pick you up, and flip you all around."
• Feelin' Love by Paula Cole includes the line, "And you would open the door and tie me up to the bed."
• The British band Depeche Mode also has been known to include elements of BDSM and bondage in their lyrics. Their video Master and Servant featured bondage imagery and their video In Your Room was allegedly banned by the American MTV station for bondage imagery.
• The Noise-Artist Merzbow has frequently put out bondage-related Tapes and LPs / CDs, most prominently his "Music for bondage performance" (Parts 1 and 2).
• The three Rammstein songs, Bestrafe Mich (Punish me),Feuerrader (Firewheels) and Bück Dich (Bend over) have BDSM as main themes of the lyrics. Bestrafe Mich is, however, about God and Atheism but BDSM is used as a lyrical theme.
• The Die Ärzte song Bitte Bitte (Please Please) features various BDSM practises and the lines "Du tust mir weh, was will ich mehr? Ich bin dein Diener, du der Herr." ("You hurt me, what would I desire more? I am the servant, you the master.").
• Before His Days as a Pirate and a Highwayman, Adam Ant's original persona was completely bondage fueled. He dressed in black leather bondage suits and had songs like "Beat My Guest" and "Whip In My Valise"
• The Three Days Grace song "Pain" includes lines such as "Pain, I can't get enough" and "Pain, I like it rough"
• Venus in furs by The Velvet Underground and Nico.
• "Suffer the Flesh" by Android Lust includes lyrics such as "Under your command, You like to make me suffer", and "I bow down in submission, Just to taste your flesh"
• "Blood, Sex and Booze" by Green Day contains the line "All dressed up and bound and gagged" as well as other references to masochism
• The song "Fetish" by Joan Jett contains numerous lines of BDSM related material.
• Lyrics to the song "Head Like a Hole" by Nine Inch Nails: "Bow down before the one you serve / you're going to get what you deserve."
• The song "Tear You Apart" by She Wants Revenge contains numerous lines of BDSM related material including hair pulling and fantasizing.

Music videos

• Nine Inch Nails songs "Happiness In Slavery" and "Closer" featured elements of bondage and masochism.
• "Human Nature" by Madonna (dressed in a black catsuit and stiletto heels) features many rope- and chain bondage scenes, as well as the use of a gag, spreader bar, strappado bondage using a monoglove, and a riding crop.
• "Erotica" by Madonna, all the song and video is about BDSM, video features her in different behaviour (dominant as well as submissive), practicing whipping, sensation play with riding crop and other accessories.
• "Shake Your Blood" by Dave Grohl's Metal Band, PROBOT, featured many strong images of bound women performing masochistic/sadistic and lesbian acts. Though the footage has been carefully edited so as not to be explicit, it is still extremely suggestive.

Record covers

• The album Vaporizer by Lupine Howl

Every pic is femme bottom

Every picture on this page where the bottom's sex is identifiable, she's female. That's wildly misrepresentative of the demographics of folks who actually do BDSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezziedoll (talk • contribs)

I agree: this is probably a reflection of the current demographics of Wikipedia, which at the moment has far too few female Wikipedians, and the popularity of the femsub image among vanilla male readers, something which does not, as you say, represent the true demographics of BDSMfolk. You are welcome to address this bias by adding images to the article which more accurately represent the balance between male and female, sub and dom. In particular, if you can provide new and more representative images which can be released under the GFDL, that would be very welcome. -- The Anome 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Resources

While http://http://alt.com/search/g795563-ppc.subwikipedia?ip=auto BDSM & Fetish Personals is added to the resource section, an important bdsm information that contains playlist at http://www.femdomale.com/BDSM-playlist.html is removed. The commercial links are kept while informational page is deleted. This is against Wikipedia's external links policy. Please pay attention everyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Huanma (talk • contribs).

• Oh, it's that. Oops. I thought it was another of those radio shows. ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 08:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User with IP 80.78.159.210 possible spam?

BDSM Playlist got removed again by user with ip 80.78.159.210

Please take a look at this person's contributions... and is this the act of spam?

External links

Ive been having a look at the external links that the BDSM page points too and it seems to me that most are theory based pages with very little real life content. I think what we have to remember is most people who look at this page will be interested in the real life aspects of bdsm and not just how it all works in theory.

I also note that someone has written not to add new links directly but to discuss them here first or add them to the open directory. I understand this as an anti spamming measure but I had thought that this site was made by users for users and just going around removing links that have valid information without at least discussing it here first is rediculous even for an editor.

I also think that the editor responsible for he BDSM and related pages should actually have experience within the lifestyle, which in all honesty im not convinced they have.

Anyway thats my opinion for what its worth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blair29 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

-- I agree that many of the links were spammy or not relevant. However, I'd like to petition the consensus here to return the link that has been removed: "Submission and Coffee with Dollie Llama" (24/7 podcast from BDSM couple, http://www.askdollie.com )

I subscribe to this cast, and it is very relavant, and is entirely "real life content." It is a married, suburban couple in a 24-7 BDSM relationship. And the sub in the relationship is Dollie Llama, a published BDSM author who has been reviewed in Marquis Magazine, on KSEX radio, has given seminars at the Lair DeSade and elsewhere. Her books are on amazon, Barnes & Nobel, WalMart, the Stockroom, etc.

I've listened to many "sex casts" and this is one of the few that seems to be not about smut and sensationalism, but rather about loving, consensual 24/7 PE in action. ElizaBarrington 03:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As this was set out to be a more interesting topic. http://floozy.ca/ is a Blog journal written by a real life 24/7 slave. I think it offers a good insight into BDSM and makes clear that it is a choice of alternative lifestyle, not something close to abuse. I would love to see it on the reference links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.37.182 (talk • contribs) 23:51, August 5, 2007

Conflict Resolution

How is this relevant? As the section itself states, any subgroup develops self policing behavior. As this is not peculiar to this particular subgroup, I fail to see any reason for inclusion, and suggest that it be removed.

Besides, "he-said, she-said"? Really pushing the Flesch-Kincaid with that one. 67.34.59.40

"The Pet"

Anyone else think that this film should be added to the list of movies? Use google if you've never heard of it (and you probably haven't - its pretty obscure atm). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.248.61 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't think so, myself... the movie doesn't actually deal with consentual BDSM, does it? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen The Pet yet myself, but it's supposed to be about a couple who form a consensual human-pet relationship, so I say it should go in the list. --Mightyfastpig 04:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Lifestyle

I realize that different regions have different usages for terms. Perhaps BDSM scene" is used more in England than the U.S.?

BDSM Lifestyle:

• "This page is for miscellaneous information about the lifestyle, sexual practices, and other general topics that are not specific to one role or mindset."[2]
• "Defining The Bdsm Life Style: The Essential Prerequisite"[3]
• "BDSM Lifestyle Starter Books "[http://www.amazon.com/BDSM-Lifestyle-Starter-Books/lm/V8HPWD5EJVVH]
• "Interview with BDSM Lifestyle"[4]
• "Oh, and the thing BDSM proponents say about how you never can really leave the lifestyle because you won’t be able to resist coming back? "[5]

And 102,000 other references[6]

Also 23,000 for "leather lifestyle"[7]

And of course, 74,500 for Swingers lifestyle[8] Atom 00:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification -- I've just never heard "in the lifestyle" in this (or any) context. I'll also (reluctantly) note that I'm American, not British. HalJor 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BDSM in Second Life

Interessting article, just FYI. BDSM blossoms in Second Life --217.227.18.77 15:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation from the featured German article

Since the local translation process under talk:BDSM/de is stalling, I have asked for help here. I hope this will help, I'm still willing to give a hand, but I just can't handle it alone. Any help is highly appreciated. ;-) --Nemissimo II 11:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Genderflux

Could any native speaker with access to literature write an according article? --Nemissimo II 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of wippipedia link

Wipipedia Is the most widely known wikiproject on BDSM, to delete this link is utter nonsense. --Nemissimo II 12:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Exit To Eden"

I'd favor removing this from the movie section. While it does have a BDSM component, it's a generic comedic heist flick, dressed up in leather. The BDSM in "Exit To Eden" is crudely drawn and stereotypical, and the characters' kink is often the butt of bad jokes. The Ann Rice book "Exit To Eden" (on which this film is VERY loosely based), is great, but Hollywood really blew it with this one, as they often do with portraying BDSM. (...Just this gal's opinion....) ElizaBarrington 03:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the movie was a travesty on several levels, but it was billed as a romance-comedy-heist-with-SM, so it should be left in the list in the interest of completeness. --Mightyfastpig 04:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see that....But maybe there could be two movie categories, one for movies that show intelligently written, safe, sane & consensual D/s (although it would be a pretty short list), and one where D/s just a selling point or window dressing. (And maybe a third list where the person into bondage ends up being a serial killer...which seems to be most of them, especially in television shows-- CSI, Law and Order, the Shield, et al.)

This is an issue I have with media....There really is very little TV and Hollywood film that portrays healthy people in any kind of reasonable BDSM relationships.

One of the most accurate and non-judgemental D/s characters I've seen on TV is Janice Soprano from "The Sopranos." One episode has her being the recipient of rather hot & heavy (unloaded) gun play, in another she's domming a guy verbally while penetrating him anally with a vibrator. (Although, true to TV, she later ends up killing one guy, and pushing the other down a flight of stairs.)

I can see the point of having the list just be "any movie that mentions any D/s, BDSM, bondage, Dom(me)/sub play", but I can also see how it would not be unencyclopedic to offer some categorization of them...Otherwise a novice looking to this entry for educational help might end up damn confused.

This is a bit of a noodle scratcher.... Any suggestions? ElizaBarrington 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Added "Spoken Wikipedia" files of this article

Howdy!

We recorded an audio version of this article, it's been uploaded. It's two parts (was too long for one part.) I'm not really sure how to do the link....I put it in twice with the two file names. If this is wrong, can someone help please?

Thank you, Dollie and Daddy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DollieLlama (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Oops. Forgot to sign this. DollieLlama 04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

regarding link to MP3 of "Spoken Wikipedia" file of this article

Added, this link:

• Spoken Wikipedia version of this article as a single MP3 file

then remembered "do not add links" notice and removed link, posted here as per notice.

Daddy made this link as a single-file MP3 and hosted it, so people with no Vogg Orbis player could play it (also to deal with problem I'm having making the two-part linking work....the little speaker icon in the top right corner of the page is linking the second part, not the first part.....Also the code for the parts at bottom seem to not look right.)

Is it ok to add this link to the link page?

We are willing to record more BDSM and sex-related spoken articles, but need help with the code. Sorry if this is a bother...Reading the article is easier than writing the code.

Thank you, Dollie DollieLlama 09:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see it's now fixed, by SCEhardt. Thank you! DollieLlama 05:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Added link:

• Spoken Wikipedia version of this article as a single MP3 file

to article, since no one commented on here in three weeks. DollieLlama 10:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Egalitarian Masochist"

I just deleted this newly added "aspect". To me this is very clearly unsubstantiated POV. Please discuss it here and give reliable sources before adding it again. --Nemissimo II 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Glossary

The Service Top page was a stub that I filled out - someone else made it a useless link I undid their change. For many of the terms it may be use useful to pull them into separate articles that heavily link back to the main. People who are only generally familiar with BDSM concepts may be just looking for a single term and forcing people to dig through a hefty tome may not be in Wiki's best interest. Spandox 12:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Why has the Translation Request (de)BDSM → (en) BDSM/translation been deleted without any further discussion??--Nemissimo II 15:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Water bondage

Shouldn't water bondage be added to BDSM forms?

Paraphilia

Regarding my recent revert - perhaps there should be some mention of BDSM as a paraphilia? Although psychologists' views specific to masochism are probably better off (at least, primarily) in Sadism and masochism or Sadism and masochism as medical terms. Also I think anything on this subject is better off starting with things like the official DSM and ICD definitions, and named psychologists' views, rather than deducing what a consensus is based on a single web article. Mdwh 21:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dolcett

Why has dolcett been removed and the article deleted ?Hektor 08:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any evidence this topic has ever been discussed in this article, so why are you asking? Valrith 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Biological history

Uh... should I put in a bit about it being possible that sexual stimulation (biologically) would be caused by pain in a last-ditch effort for the animal to reproduce? or is there another article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.116.226 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article covers a range of topics specific to humans, and it seems that there would be other articles more appropriate for a well-cited statement as you propose -- in particular, a subsection of Non-human animal sexual behavior (Types of Activity), perhaps. Even if it were true for humans as well, it would probably belong under Sadism and masochism instead of this article. HalJor 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion of BDSM Link showing lots of free tricks, guides and security rules related to SM and BDSM

• Free int. BDSM Guides, Tricks, Help & Security Rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sltutorials (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Talk page Archived on 14 July 2006, See talk:BDSM/archive1. Active and pertinent stuff left here too. Atom 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Talk page Archived on 19 November 2007, See talk:BDSM/archive2. --Nemissimo (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC) .

Translation of the featured German version continuous under Talk:BDSM/Translation

Any help, especially proofreading by native speakers is highly appreciated. ;-) --Nemissimo 20:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished the translation. It would be great if someone could start proofreading it. After the proofreading I will integrate the minor aspects from the old article witch are not already included and move it.--Nemissimo 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has been copy edited by native speakers and is nearly ready to be moved.--Nemissimo 15:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New Photos from David Shankbone

Hey all - in researching an S&M dungeon here in New York City (Rebecca's Hidden Chamber, voted Best of New York City) they allowed me to take photographs of the professionals. I did an interview with the owners and Mistresses for Wikinews that I expect to get transcribed soon; once I do, I'll put some of the photos on the page. They are pretty high quality of professionals. I think they'll they'll improve the quality of the page. Just a "head's up". --David Shankbone 21:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)