Talk:BDSM/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Criticism Section

Why is there no criticism section? This article is biased in favor of BDSM and without any criticism (with the exception being criticism from feminists). There is no mention that many of the people who practice BDSM were either sexually abused as children, and/or suffer from some form of mental illness. 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What are you basing that on? Wikipedia needs to use high-quality, reliable sources for its information, and I'm not aware of any that support either of the assertions you make. They're common misconceptions about BDSM, but they're not fact-based. Quite the opposite, at least one recent study suggests that, on average, practitioners of BDSM are mentally healthier than non-practitioners. – RobinHood70 talk 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure that people who enjoy being told they are worthless pieces of garbage, have tiny penises, and deserve to be treated like sh**, and then get beaten or defecated on, or even tortured (among other worse and more horrific things I won't even mention here). I'm sure that the people who engage in this stuff are mentally healthy human beings. 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You have some interesting ideas as to what BDSM is about. Sadly, for the most part, they don't match reality. The guy who gets tied up or blindfolded with a woman's scarf? They're practicing BDSM. Some people choose to practice more extreme things, such as you mention, and they're just as mentally healthy as the aforementioned couple. It's their choice. In the end, though, your opinion or mine don't matter. What matters are the opinions of professionals that are published in peer-reviewed journals. Those professionals have a markedly different view on the mental health of BDSM practitioners than you do, so that's what goes into the article. If you can find other recent, peer-reviewed information that says that those of us who practice BDSM are all nuts, we can put that into the article too. Right now, though, that information doesn't seem to exist. – RobinHood70 talk 03:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
You may be right. However I can't comprehend that people who engage in the more extreme forms of BDSM are sane functional people, it just doesn't add up when you think about the true brutality and sickness of the sex acts. I have a curious mind (on many issues, not just sexuality) and recently did some research on BDSM and some of it is sick and disgusting beyond words (and I consider myself a sexually open-minded person, not some conservative religious person). 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
In the same vein, I can't understand that people who get into a boxing ring and come out with significant injuries are sane, functional people, but apparently they are. What doesn't make sense to you or me has little bearing on how sane someone is in reality. They just look at certain activities differently than we do. – RobinHood70 talk 20:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
IP, the article addresses different views of BDSM among health professionals; and indeed, as the material addressing that matter shows, not all aspects of BDSM are considered mentally healthy among health professionals. But there are certain criteria, especially regarding the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) criteria, that need to be met before a BDSM activity is considered a mental disorder by some health professionals; yes, even in the case of coprophilia (sexual pleasure from defecating on someone or being defecated on). Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking the Psychology section over, though, I can understand how a person could argue that the section is currently generally pro-BDSM; that stated, we are supposed to defer to what the WP:Reliable sources state on the matter...and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Original research and NPOV

This article appears to contain large amounts of material presented without citations, some of which looks like original research, and some of which appears to present opinions without any attempt to meet the WP:NPOV criteria. It urgently needs thorough editing to meet Wikipedia's standards. -- The Anome (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

BDSM Culture webpage

Dear editor, I would like to recommend my webpage as database about BDSM related mainstream media: www.bdsmculture.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.109.146 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Subcultures

'This scene appears particularly on the Internet, in publications, and in meetings such as SM parties, gatherings called munches, and erotic fairs. The annual Folsom Street Fair is the world's largest BDSM event.[55] It has its roots in the gay leather movement. There are also conventions like Living in Leather, TESfest, Shibaricon, Spankfest, and Black Rose. North American cities that have large BDSM communities include New York City, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Atlanta, Seattle, Denver, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Diego, Dallas, Minneapolis, Toronto, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. European cities with large BDSM communities include London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Munich, Cologne, Hamburg, Moscow and Rome.'

So basically large Western cities/capitals? Novalia (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be the gist of it, though I suspect a lot of people in Moscow would be insulted if you referred to them as "Western". Shortening the list might detract from the information it provides, though. As is, at least assuming there's no significant bias to it, the list provides some degree of insight into where BDSM is popular (e.g., Germany) and where it's not (e.g., Spain). – RobinHood70 talk 20:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Define "large" communities... all of these cities listed are large cities, so it would be expected there is a larger BDSM community. Portland, Oregon has a 1700 person event called Kinkfest annually, but is not listed. Is that "large"? I think the only way to quantify large would be a 'per-capita' basis which is not an easy statistic to find. This entire thing should have citations / qualification of large, or be replaced with a generic statement such as, "most large metropolitan areas have active BDSM communities". --76.115.173.153 (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Control blue link

The 'control' aspect blue link is linked to the 'power and control in abusive relationships' page, which has no information on control as it applies to BDSM relationships. Having this link here comes across as disingenuous as it implies that all control aspects of BDSM relationships are abusive, when this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.41.195 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2014‎

Agreed, that's an inappropriate link to be making. I've removed it. – RobinHood70 talk 01:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material

The recent removals of unsourced (and sometimes even sourced) material left portions of the article very unbalanced. Instead of exploring the appropriate subtopic of BDSM, they left either one-sided information or no information at all in place of what had been moderately thorough coverage. Before any further removals or rewrites, I think we need to discuss some of these changes on the talk page. "Unsourced" does not mean "untrue". While I fully respect WP:UNSOURCED, I think talk page discussion would have been appropriate before these bulk removals were made. Much of the information is readily verifiable or common knowledge within the BDSM community. Online sources may be a bit more difficult to come by, however, due to the nature of the topic. – RobinHood70 talk 02:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, RobinHood. I very much hear what you are saying. If I inadvertently deleted anything that was sourced, I apologize, and I would not oppose its reversion. Most of what I (intended to) delete had been both unsourced and tagged as unsourced now for months. I'm not contesting/asserting what is true or not, but what meets WP criteria as WP:verifiable. For better or worse, being "common knowledge" to the BDSM (or any other) community is not sufficient for including it in WP. I am very happy to help out obtaining RS's that might otherwise be behind paywalls. (The university where I am has a very extensive library.) — James Cantor (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Relatedly, there is very much material on the Sadomasochism page that is also unsourced. I decided not to delete it, however, because it's been tagged only recently. My offer stands for helping retrieve sources for that too. Finally, it is not clear to me if BDSM and Sadomasochism are sufficiently distinct to merit their own pages, or if they should be merged.— James Cantor (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
For the content that RobinHood70 and James Cantor are referring to, see this. Flyer22 (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll go through it in more detail tomorrow, if I can (I do have a chronic illness, however, so I make no promises). While edits that delete roughly 10% of an article's content almost always raise red flags for me, the edits that caught my eye in particular were:
  • This one, which changes the context of "top", "bottom" and "switch" to eliminate any description of switches, dominant bottoms, and submissive tops, and changes the description of "top" to sound like someone who might choose not to respect a bottom's limits (which we normally define as abusers, not tops). On re-reading, though, I think that may just be a wording issue. I had originally thought that you had removed a reference here, but I see now that that's not the case.
  • This one, which removes all discussion of the topic whatsoever.
  • And finally, this one, which I would think would be easy to verify, since it sites the sections of law referred to.
The film edit also raised a flag for me, simply for removing the list of films itself, which I don't think really needs a citation, but since I'm not entirely convinced that we need that section in the first place, I'm not going to make a big deal about it.
Also, when it comes to removing unsourced text, don't forget that {{Citation needed}} tags are there to request that citations be added, not necessarily that the text be removed. True, if they're there a long time, it's often a good reason to remove the text, but as a courtesy to those of us who tend toward inclusionism, I think it would have been better to announce your intention to delete large portions of the article a few days before you actually did so. – RobinHood70 talk 03:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I've started restoring some of the text with what citations I can find. I take it as a given that some sources will be less than ideal for the simple reason that BDSM is not often covered in mainstream non-fiction literature. Nevertheless, I'm trying to use relatively formal sites that cover BDSM as understood in the broad community, as well as references to well-known authorities in the field whenever possible. I think having sources is the first step; improving them can come later if they're not up to WP:RS standards.
Also, I neglected to answer one of your questions in my last response. As far as merging Sadomasochism with BDSM, that depends entirely how thoroughly we intend to cover the topic here. BDSM, of course, is a much broader topic than sadomasochism alone, and there are people who practice BDSM who have no interest in sadomasochism. For that reason, I'd say we either have to cover the topic very thoroughly here or leave it as its own page, but I'd definitely lean towards leaving it as a page of its own. – RobinHood70 talk 21:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Although I am sympathetic to the problem, WP is not a fan cite. If the material does not receive coverage by RS's, then the material does not belong in an encyclopedia. That is, we don't lower are standards to justify material; WP has set a standard, and we include only the material that meets it. Also, there is no deadline. You can re-add whatever material as sources come forth; we don't start with whatever material we believe is "common knowledge" and then back fill the sources.
Because there doesn't seem to be any input from anyone else who might be watching this page, I have made an entry at WP:RS/N to ask for other opinions.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

History of BDSM vs. psychological profession

The previous discussion here seems to have been moved to the archives, but a new relevant link is http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/bdsm-versus-the-dsm/384138/ ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Split

Split the article, extract some things into subpages. Article is 140 KB in size (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDSM&action=info) and under WP:SIZESPLIT should be split. --194.85.161.2 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:SIZE, readable prose is what matters (not all of the references and things that add on to kilobyte size), and there are bigger articles than this one that are not split. Furthermore, some BDSM topics that are mentioned in this article already have their own Wikipedia articles. Like WP:Spinout states, there is no need for haste. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I reverted you here, stating, "Cutting out parts is likelier the answer, since a lot of BDSM topics in this article already have their own Wikipedia articles." Some content, such as what is in the Legal status section, should be moved to the article that exists for that topic. If a section already has a Wikipedia article for that topic, then WP:Summary style should be used, with a Template:Main article link pointing readers to the main article for that subject. Flyer22 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

194.85.161.2 -- When making such a proposal, it would be constructive to offer up a few proposed titles of new or existing articles to which subsections could be moved... AnonMoos (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree w/ Flyer22 above re cutting redundant parts and summarizing. (I'd also remove some large chunks of still un-referenced text.)— James Cantor (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Image insertion & Asiakink

I'm of the opinion that there are enough images on this page, and while I have no beef with image insertion that shows an example of something not currently described or shown, I see no point in simply adding images that are already described or shown in perfectly acceptable fashion already on the page.

If you are of the opinion that your "Image is a better representation than other images currently in article" then that means that others can be removed instead - which I am not averse to either, but please indicate by discussion which images you think should be removed.

If your image is better than others, then that makes the other images either superfluous - or worse detrimental - to the article and I agree they should be replaced by yours. However, I'm not seeing that yet. Please discuss before reverting again, to be in line with the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy.

Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

External Links

Actually I just wanted to improve the externals links with adding a link to a list of popular BDSM website ([http://www.iwantporn.net/best-bdsm-sites BDSM websites]), so people can immediately see what the internet offers in this genre.

Original website says to submit links here on the talk page instead - so what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UllyTrumay (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that the site you want to link to is named "I Want Porn", I'd wager that such a link would violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID or WP:SPAM, if not both. So... no. HalJor (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Correction of figures by an IP editor

In this edit, an anonymous IP editor changed the figures quoted from an academic paper. Just in case this was a case of a drive-by IP putting wrong figures in, I checked the edit against the source, on page 13 of

Samantha J. Dawson, Brittany A. Bannerman, and Martin L. Lalumière (2014), "Paraphilic Interests: An Examination of Sex Differences in a Nonclinical Sample", Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment: 1–26, doi:10.1177/1079063214525645

and the IP appears to have put the correct values in, correcting the previous, wrong, numbers. I wonder how long this article has had the wrong figures in, before this IP editor corrected them. To that editor: thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on BDSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Sadomasochism be merged into BDSM. Their current contents are essentially the same, all of the information on each is entirely relevant to the other, and the terms are used interchangeably among RS's, making them pretty much inseparable. (Although there are individual authors who prefer one term or the other, there is nothing near a consensus among RSs about what, if any, any differences exist between them beyond personal preference.) I suggest merging into BDSM rather than merging into Sadomasochism, because the term "sadomasochism" has been both used as a medical term (to indicate the paraphilias "sexual sadism disorder" and "sexual masochism disorder") as well as a colloquial term for kink, whereas BDSM has only been used in the context of kink, so would not be confused with the medical uses.
— James Cantor (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the terms are interchangeable. SM is a subcategory of BDSM, involving the use of pain, and there are many in the BDSM scene who have no interest in SM (pain). If SM and BDSM have been used interchangeably on wikipedia so far then that is the issue to be addressed. It may simply appear they are being used interchangeably to the inexperienced eye, specific examples would be needed. SM is sometimes used as a colloquial term for kink but I don't see colloquial usage as a valid argument to merge these articles. 183.171.175.210 (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(Just for reference, I note the nearly simultaneous reversion made at Sadomasochism by an IP editor, here.— James Cantor (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC))
I appreciate the IP's point of view. There are indeed individual BDSM fans (and fan websites) who use these various terms as slang and overlapping nicknames. There do not exist, however, any "official" definitions (nor body empowered to establish such definitions). What goes into WP is what is contained in reliable sources on the topic, not how any of us is accustomed to using whatever terms in our social lives. So, I agree with you in that if SM and BDSM are used differently on WP than how they are among the RS's (overall, not just individual or local uses), then WP's use would indeed need to be addressed. Making such a claim, however, would require you actually to provide these RS's, not just ask other editors to take anyone word for it.— James Cantor (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
While I agree that "all of the information on each is entirely relevant to the other", I disagree that "Their current contents are essentially the same". I note that Sadomasochism opens with "Sadomasochism is the giving or receiving of pleasure—sometimes sexual..." and remains largely focused on historical psychology (while mentioning the sexual aspect) while BDSM opens with "BDSM is a variety of erotic practices..." (while mentioning the etymology and origins). Each article is important in its own right and I would prefer that the articles remain separate, paring down the commonalities and linking to each other as the "main article". HalJor (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Further, without having gone through the research involved, I'm skeptical that "the terms are used interchangeably among RS's", particularly among the RS's in Sadomasochism, where most are approaching from the medical and psychological perspectives. Your initial statement, acknowledging that sadomasochism is primarily a medical term, seems to warrant that it remain its own article for the benefit of those seeking that perspective. Following the merge (actually a redirect), the reader is overwhelmed with the kink aspects -- only a subsection (1.2) for etymology with only six cited references compared to sadomasochism's twenty-five. HalJor (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If there are any RS'ed specifics, I am all ears. If one tries tracing what is said in the sources (and in the sources they, in turn, use), you'll see that they are all providing the identical range of definitions, differing only in editors' paraphrasing, not in the actual content. Indeed, many of the sources used as RS's on one page actually use the name of the other page (!). If there is any (sourced) material at all on Sadomasochism that is not already on (and entirely relevant to be on) BDSM, no one has said what it might be. I know this literature rather well, and "BDSM" is (by far) the most common phrase used to refer to the healthy variety of kink and only the healthy variety, whereas Sadomasochism has been used/claimed by both the psychiatric/medical as well as community groups. ("Sexual sadism" and now "sexual sadism disorder" are currently the most common phrases for the psychiatric/medical problem.) — James Cantor (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
New section, for those interested: Talk:Sadomasochism#Redirecting_to_BDSM.— James Cantor (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
From a completely cultural perspective, it should also be noted that BDSM is generally referred to as being strictly sexual, while sadomasochism may or may not be so. Also, BDSM refers more explicitly to sadomasochistic acts, not the concept of sadomasochism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.25.82 (talk • contribs)
Sadomasochism is a term used to describe serial killers and criminals. This term is not directly applicable to BDSM as a lifestyle or activity. Sadomasochism is exercised within BDSM, but making the terms equal would be a great disservice 98.119.155.194 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)John Kabneched

Armageddon Entropy

Since a number of User:Armageddon Entropy's recent edits to this article have been reverted, and there doesn't seem to be any forward progress in this process, I've invited them to discuss any further changes here to achieve consensus. @Armageddon Entropy: I look forward to seeing your contributions here. -- The Anome (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of the acronym BDSM

I'm really, really sure of this.

Prior to 1980 (you can argue about the date) BDSM was:

Bondage/discipline sadism/masochism.

It was not:

Bondage/discipline Dominance/submission Sadism/masochism.

Somebody came up with this "improvement" much, much later. In linguistics this is called "folk etymology" or "popular etymology."

Prove me wrong by citing an example before that date.

Unfortunately, I can't prove a negative, that there wasn't an earlier example.

I changed this in the article but someone reverted it. Somebody else as old as me (68) must remember this too.

Now that I think about it, I don't think there was as much "dominance - submission" back there in any context. "Top - bottom" either. Funny. God, I'm getting old.

deisenbe (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:BDSM/Archive_4#Etymology HalJor (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that interesting reference. It seems to say that the article as it currently stands is wrong on this point.deisenbe (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where this idea comes from, but it definitely stands for all three in modern understanding. The word was only invented in 1991 according to the OED (and my own researches in the matter, which have gone somewhat deeper than the OED, have failed to throw up an earlier dating), so any claims about what it meant in 1980 are bunk. The New Partridge dictionary claims that it was around in 1969, but this is an error (I had to learn the hard way that that dictionary is not to be trusted on datings at all) — it cites the Wentworth–Flexner Dictionary of American Slang, but that doesn't contain the initialism. It does have 'B and D'/'B/D' and 'S and M' separately, but the combination into one acronym doesn't seem to have happened until 1991. 'D & S' is from 1990 or earlier (OED). 'SMBD' also shows up in 1990, and 'BDSM' seems to have been a re-arrangement to allow 'D/s' into the mix.
In light of this I have revised this section of the article deleting the claims of folk etymology and re-dating it in accordance with the OED and my own research. DavidPKendal (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations; "domme"; "dominatrix"

Fourth paragraph: The short discussion of the abbreviations for "dominant" in the introductory section seems to me misplaced and awkward. The statement that the pronunciations of "dom" and "domme" are identical conflicts with an alternative pronunciation of "domme" given at dominatrix. And if terminology related to "dominant" is to be given such prominence, doesn't the term "dominatrix" deserve similar prominence? The latter term appears several times in the article, all but once in the context of a profession. Brec (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BDSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported claim / POV

"Interest in BDSM can range from one-time experimentation to a lifestyle"

I see a few problems with this claim being in the introduction to this article, and I'm not quite sure why it hasn't been removed.

  • The claim is a possible POV considering the use of the word 'interest' and 'lifestyle'.
  • The claim is vague. What does 'lifestyle' mean?
  • The claim is not supported by a citation (it's already grounds for removal under wikipedia policy).
  • The claim is unencyclopedic.

I plan to remove it, unless there's a good argument to keep it in the article. Coin Collecting John (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Google for "Lifestyle BDSM". It's a thing. But I agree, it needs a citation to reliable sources. This Google search might be a good place to start. -- The Anome (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the ICD-10 guidelines

Recently, we seem to have repeated visits from editors with an anti-BDSM point of view, with editing patterns which appear to have some elements in common. One of the more recent has been quoting the ICD-10 as support for their edits. I'd just like to quote the relevant passage from the WHO's own ICD-10 guidelines, which states:

"Mild degrees of sadomasochistic stimulation are commonly used to enhance otherwise normal sexual activity. This category should be used only if sadomasochistic activity is the most important source of stimulation or necessary for sexual gratification."
Source: "Sadomasochism, F65.5". The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines (PDF). World Health Organization. p. 172. Retrieved 8 March 2014.

This also makes for interesting reading:

Giami, Alain (2015-05-02). "Between DSM and ICD: Paraphilias and the Transformation of Sexual Norms" (PDF). Archives of Sexual Behavior. 44 (5): 1127–1138. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0549-6. ISSN 0004-0002.

-- The Anome (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In reply to the edits on the BDSM page. I am anti the propaganda and extreme bias on that page which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should be. Clearly to resistance to merging sadomasochism and BDSM pages comes from people who want to keep denying it has a medical definition and a dictionary definition and that all of the practices described on the BDSM page = sadomasochism. The BDSM page is trying to turn a sexual disorder into some minority group with normal behavior that need to "come out". However someone with BDSM behaviors perceives it, the current medical view on it is as i is. I'ts ok to say people disagree with that on a wikipedia page, it is not ok or anything like truth to so distort it all that you deny that medical view even exists or applies to what you are talking about. Write a newspaper article that argues your biased point of view, or in some other forum that is about persuasive arguing for points of view, that's not what wikipedia is for. Your selected quote from the ICD "diagnostic"manual is an excellent example of bias. I have put the full ICD descriptions on the BDSM poage, no doubt someone will take it down soon. Being able to delete facts doesn't make them go away. Full ICD here: ICD-10 the actual ICD-10 

F65 Disorders of sexual preference  
F65.5
Sadomasochism
A preference for sexual activity which involves the infliction of pain or humiliation, or bondage. 
If the subject prefers to be the  recipient of        
such stimulation this is called masochism; if the provider, sadism. Often an individual obtains sexual excitement from both 
sadistic and masochistic activities. [4]
The clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidlines 
A preference for sexual activity that involves bondage or the infliction of pain
or humiliation. If the individual prefers to be the recipient of such stimulation
this is called masochism; if the provider, sadism. Often an individual obtains
sexual excitement from both sadistic and masochistic activities.
Mild degrees of sadomasochistic stimulation are commonly used to enhance
otherwise normal sexual activity. This category should be used only if
sadomasochistic activity is the most important source of stimulation or
necessary for sexual gratification.
Sexual sadism is sometimes difficult to distinguish from cruelty in sexual
situations or anger unrelated to eroticism. Where violence is necessary for
erotic arousal, the diagnosis can be clearly established. [5]

Another relevant point from the guidlines note "abnormal" 

Erotic practices are too diverse and many too rare or idiosyncratic to justify a
separate term for each. Swallowing urine, smearing faeces, or piercing
foreskin or nipples may be part of the behavioural repertoire in
sadomasochism. Masturbatory rituals of various kinds are common, but the
more extreme practices, such as the insertion of objects into the rectum or
penile urethra, or partial self-strangulation, when they take the place of
ordinary sexual contacts, amount to abnormalities.[6]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PropagandaSux (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please go back and read the ICD-10 guidelines above, which describe how those criteria to be applied, specifically the words "Mild degrees of sadomasochistic stimulation are commonly used to enhance otherwise normal sexual activity. This category should be used only if sadomasochistic activity is the most important source of stimulation or necessary for sexual gratification" (which you yourself have cited above) which exactly describes the scope of the content of the article. The other part of the guidelines you quote, which uses the word "abnormal", also refers only to "the most extreme practices".
By the way, even if you were right about your interpretation, which you are not, the current draft proposals for the ICD-11 de-pathologise almost everything in ICD-10 F65, with the exception of coercive behavior, which would still (correctly, in my opinion) be viewed as pathological. The presence of informed consent is exactly what distinguishes consensual BDSM (the subject of this article) from abuse, in exactly the same way that its presence distinguishes consensual sex from sexual assault. The final version of the ICD-11 should become official in 2017, if current plans work out. So you've got that to look forward to: your "facts" are apparently mutable, it seems. and they are indeed about to "go away".
You also appear to be editing from multiple accounts. Please don't do this. -- The Anome (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: I see that User:PropagandaSux has been indefblocked for disruptive editing. I also note that the second section of their quoted text is from section F65.8, "Other disorders of sexual preference", not from the F65.5 sadomasochism section, and gives a misleading impression if it is quoted without making this clear. I've now struck out the part of my reply above that responded to this, as it is no longer needed. -- The Anome (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent reversions

So that I do not wander into edit warring, I am opening a discussion. An overview of the dispute:

My reasoning for undoing the reversion, even though it sat on the page for a month, is that is struck me as violating neutral POV. (According to whom is it "abuse"? While those are technically accurate terms in the loose sense of "abuse", that is a loaded word, and it shouldn't be used lightly. Secondly, I do not think that because it was been on the page for a long time means that it was accepted. Content on the page may be challenged at any point, long-time editors of a page may not notice that there is a problematic edit, the page watchers may simply not notice that a potentially problematic edit was made at all. And, additionally, I can state the same reasoning, the edit made by Johjons94 has no edit summary and is an unexplained edit; additionally, the phrasing "a wide range of sensual impressions" has existing on the page since July 10, 2013. As you've asked, why has Johjons94 deleted a phrasing that has existed on the article for three years and was accepted without problems? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

While I was writing this up Chaheel Riens reverted Enf6jv's reversion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
(e/c) The terms "abuse & violence" are not supported by the rest of the article, nor by sources used, so it's inaccurate to use it in the article. In the other respects, I agree with TenTonParasol's reasoning, and have reverted back to the last stable version. Chaheel Riens (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Strike part because checking, yeah, you've have to go to like definition number too high, and the thought is just not translating right, and it still wouldn't even if I reworded and added a dozen clarifying scare quotes. At any rate, yeah, it's not physical abuse is what I did mean, and it's inaccurate as Chaheel Riens. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that Enf6jv (talk · contribs) may be yet another incarnation of the same editor we've been dealing with on previous issues. Perhaps time for a WP:SPI?

In particular, I'd be interested in the relationship, if any, between the following accounts:

-- The Anome (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree with that assessment. Even though the editor(s) in question seem to have stopped for now, the Duck would probably agree that there's grounds for suspicion at the very least. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We have tried our best to keep this page open to all users as far as reasonably possible, but if the same editing behavior returns again, I think a lengthy period of semiprotection for this article would be appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really sure of policy regarding reporting suspected socks - can they be repotred at any time, or do we have to wiat until they're active, and editing? I suspect the former, but I'm not sure. When it comes to this sort of thing, I'm more adept at seeing IP address-hopping and blocks and PP with those, but not so much with actual registered editors. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe they can be reported at any time -- I was just being too lazy to start an SPI myself. -- The Anome (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with the rationale, so I'll do it. As I said, I've not done this before so it will be good practice. Have to wait until tonight though - I'm busy all day, curse that real life. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I've created an SPI here (whether I've done it right is another question.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It certainly looks like you've done it right, and it has produced results confirming sockpuppetry. -- The Anome (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems to have netted a few that we'd missed a well. I call that a result. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

A useful cite

Recently added content also added a cite to this:

Jozifkova, Eva (2013-08-11). "Consensual Sadomasochistic Sex (BDSM): The Roots, the Risks, and the Distinctions Between BDSM and Violence". Current Psychiatry Reports. 15 (9): 392. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0392-1. ISSN 1523-3812.

which looks like it might be useful for quite a lot of material in this article.

This is also amazingly interesting:

Sagarin, BradJ.; Cutler, Bert; Cutler, Nadine; Lawler-Sagarin, Kimberly A.; Matuszewich, Leslie (2009-04-01). "Hormonal Changes and Couple Bonding in Consensual Sadomasochistic Activity". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 38 (2): 186–200. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9374-5. ISSN 0004-0002.

-- The Anome (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Freud on abuse

The article currently has this sentence: "In his Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality Sigmund Freud claimed that sadism and masochism stemmed from childhood abuse." I'm not sure he did, as I can't find any reference to this in the source material. In it, Freud certainly claims that sadism and masochism stem from disorder of infantile development, but I can't see any reference to abuse as a cause of this in the text. The nearest I can find is a reference to infants seeing adults having sex and interpreting this as a sadistic act, but this is not the claim made in the quote. Can anyone stand up this claim? If we can, we should quote the exact words Freud used, so people can find it in the text. If not, we should stop attributing this to Freud, and, unless we can find another source for this, we need to find another cite for the claim about abuse. -- The Anome (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I would say that in a controversial article that has already seen plenty of (if you'll excuse the pun) abuse over the last few weeks, uncorroborated claims should be removed pending investigation. If sources are found they can go back in, but otherwise what are essentially false claims have no place in this article (or indeed any article). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I've made the change, replacing the text with something supported by the paper cited in the next sentence. -- The Anome (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
So, this article wasn't biased enough? You choose to focus on the only part of this article which poses an objection against the topic, (and you remove it). What happens? How can you be considered neutral on this topic viewing your edit history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.16.83 (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
It was removed because it failed validation. If you with to push your own agenda in the name of removing bias - find reliable sources to back them up. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. The aim of my edits was to bring the article in line with the available evidence from reliable sources, not to whitewash the article. If you can find citations supporting those assertions that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, then they can be re-added. For example, if you can quote the exact words (in either an English translation or the German original) supposedly used by Freud to make the assertion that was previously made, we can verify it against the source text, and put the quote back in. I couldn't find it, in spite of looking. -- The Anome (talk) 10:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BDSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal

It looks like the BDSM vandal (or another similar WP:DUCK) is now making edits to redirects to this article, such as Bdsm and Bd sm, to point to other things. They appear to be IP-agile, currently across at least 14.78.16.0/23. I've tempblocked the range, and indef-protected the redirects. -- The Anome (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If they keep doing it, I suggest administering a good flogging. Murph9000 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The network they are editing from seems to be a Korea Telecom block. I've made a start on semi-protecting all the redirects to this article, but there are quite a few. I've got down to Dungeon (BDSM) alphabetically, by now, but I have to get back to work. Would any other admins be willing to help finish the job? -- The Anome (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Now we have similar edits coming from a Spanish France Telecom range: 213.143.51.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Another duck? -- The Anome (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I've now requested help: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Systematic_attack_on_redirects_to_BDSM -- The Anome (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And that ought to have sorted things, for now. -- The Anome (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Japan and sexual crime

I deleted the claim: As an example, Japan is listed as the country with the lowest sexual crime rate out of all the industrialized nations, despite being known for its distinct BDSM and bondage pornography (see Pornography in Japan).[1] Japan actually has a high rate of sexual crime, but most of it is unreported.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2014/12/29/voices/discussing-sex-crimes-japans-safety-myth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasista11 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fantasista11: Ok, it looks like there's a major problem with that Japan Times source. The Japan Times itself may be generally a reliable source (I'm not certain of that, just assuming it for the purpose of this discussion), but that link is to comments from readers, so does not appear to be a reliable source for your claim, as it is barely better than an Internet forum. The news article that it relates to is also problematic as a source, as it is essentially one person's account of a terrible personal experience. It is an opinion piece (marked as such at the bottom of the article), and does not give significant depth of coverage of the broader issue under discussion here. In contrast, the existing reference is an academic paper which appears to probably be a reliable source. It certainly raises important questions, but it does not give a detailed analysis of the sexual crime rate in Japan. Do you have any other sources for this, such as something published by a reputable academic or a properly fact-checked article written by a respected journalist? Alternatively, but sometimes not a good source for Wikipedia purposes, anything from official government or law enforcement sources? Murph9000 (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Diamond, Milton; Uchiyama, Ayako (1999). "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 22 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(98)00035-1. PMID 10086287. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Sorry about that. Here is a more reliable source:

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/Japan.html

Title: Cultural aspects of violence against women in Japan. Subject(s): VIOLENCE -- Social aspects -- Japan; WOMEN -- Crimes against -- Japan; VICTIMS of crimes -- Counseling of -- Japan; RAPE victims -- Japan Source: Lancet, 05/20/2000, Vol. 355 Issue 9217, p1810, 3/4p Author(s): Konishi, Takako

Here is a quote from it:

"The reporting rate is also low for rape. In women, the prevalence of "sexual intercourse against her will" has consistently been several percents for the past 5 or 6 years.[1-3] Our latest random sampling survey in Tokyo in 1998 showed that 8.5% of 459 women aged 20-59 had been raped at least once. By contrast, in the 1997 White Paper on Crime published by the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice of Japan, the number of reported rapes and attempted rapes was only 1657(1.3/100 000). The true prevalence of rape is not markedly lower than that of other countries, but the number of cases reported in official statistics is extremely low." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantasista11 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fantasista11: Ok, that seems like a probably reliable source, academic and published in a respected journal. It does seem to refute the extremely low rate, and establish that the reporting rate is abnormally low. I'm not certain, however, that it reliably refutes the existing claim in our article that Japan is listed as the country with the lowest sexual crime rate…, as it acknowledges that Japan's estimated true rate is around half that of the USA: The percent of victimisation in the USA is thus only less than twice that in Japan, but the number of reported cases in the USA amounts to 30 times those in Japan. So, while Japan's actual rate may be significantly higher than other sources state, and it seems to have a major problem with unreported crime, I don't think that it tells us either way whether Japan is the lowest in actual crime rate. It seems to confirm that Japan's actual rate is still relatively low, but does not tell us how that relates to all industrialised nations. Even if Japan is not "the lowest rate", but still has a low rate in a global context, our existing claim still has relevance and may just need to say "a low rate" instead (with additional references provided). Remember that unreported sexual crime is a significant problem globally, so we need to be careful how we combine various sources, as other countries will also be underreporting to various levels. Murph9000 (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000. Good point - unfortunately, due to under reporting and a different definition of rape it is hard to find good statistics on the actual rate of sexual assault in Japan. It does seem to be fairly commonplace, however. And there also seems to be a high level of sexual harassment, such as groping. I have posted a few examples. On a related note, the age of consent in Japan is 13, so there is no statutory rape for girls or boys 13 or older.

If you want to keep up the part I took down based on straight statistics, I guess it would be difficult to refute. However, Japan has been repeatedly slammed by NGOs and other governments for sexual trafficking, pedophilia, and other sexual crimes. I doubt the sexual violence is due to pornography, I am just not sure that Japan is a good example to put up as having "low sexual crime".

Edit: Cleaned up some of the infodump below. Sorry if I am not following proper protocal, I have only done a couple of edits to Wikipedia before. Anyway, Ill look around and see if I can find an exact statistic. I have done enough research to add to some other pages on Japanese crime I suppose!

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/15/national/revision-archaic-sex-crime-laws-falling-short-critics/ Revision of Japan’s archaic sex crime laws falling short: critics by Tomohiro Osaki Nov 15, 2015 Staff Writer, Japan Times −

http://womensenews.org/2016/01/japan-criticized-for-ignoring-child-sex-abuse-exploitation/Japan Criticized for Ignoring Child Sex Abuse, ExploitationBy: Catherine Makino January 19, 2016

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/02/japan-women-sexually-harassed-at-work-report-finds - Nearly a third of Japan's women 'sexually harassed at work' Justin McCurry in Tokyo Wednesday 2 March 2016 09.52 GMT

− http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8254389.stm Tokyo police act on train gropers By Roland Buerk BBC News, Tokyo 14 September 2009 12:23 UK

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-rape-idUST17815620070515　Tue May 15, 2007 | 8:44am EDT Little sympathy for rape victims in Japan　By Chisa Fujioka | TOKYO

http://www.ajwrc.org/english/sub/voice/21-1-2.pdf Sexual Violence in Japan: Challenging the Criminal Justice System Tomoe Yatagawa,lecturer in law and Mami Nakano, lawyer (Women's Asia 21 - Voices from Japan Oct. 2008)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BDSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've semiprotected this article following recent vandalism. I'd greatly appreciate it if editors watching this article could be particularly vigilant in scrutinizing any edits to this article in the near future. Thanks in advance. -- The Anome (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2016

183.240.17.13 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
No request made. -- Dane2007 talk 06:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Bdsm does not include "dominant/submissive"

And I have removed this. It's flat-out wrong. The term refered to BD and SM. Bringing in DS was a lot later. deisenbe (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a long Etymology section which includes the terms you removed. Your revised statement is of an uncited, historical nature. In the lede, we should state the full, current understanding of the term and save the historical notes for the Etymology section if 1\ there are good references for them, and 2\ if there is consensus for the change (which may be difficult, given the depth of the discussion at Talk:BDSM/Archive_4#Etymology). HalJor (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Deisenbe -- the earliest mention of "BDSM" in the Google Groups archive is June 19th 1991 (see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.sex.bondage/AecFY02zLBQ/2pzeED3b9l0J ), while already on November 9th 1991 the analysis of BDSM as the "two-letter sequences" "bd/ds/sm" is mentioned (see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/bdsm$20bd$20ds$20sm$20group$3Aalt.sex.bondage$20before$3A1992$2F01$2F01/alt.sex.bondage/mLvZZQqKjtk/VKM1XfGikfoJ ). There's no valid evidence that I'm aware of that the term "BDSM" existed or was at all widely known or used before about 1990, so your assertion would appear to be incorrect. AnonMoos (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Religious views

I'd like to see a section devoted to religious views here, too, such as is the case with the article on homosexuality.--Bishop Morehouse (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how many religious groups have even officially considered the matter, but in one particular case, a Catholic priest told a married couple that it was fine, provided that it was confined within marriage, no lasting harm was done, and no contraception was used... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good references for article expansion

I just spotted these two good WP:RS references, which look suitable as sources for the article:

and the academic publications they report on:

and this meta-resource, from Brad Sagarin's research group, looks really promising:

-- The Anome (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Where to redirect the term rough sex

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 21#Rough sex. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Dom/Sub-space

Under the glossary of BDSM, there are links to some aspects of dom/subspace and dom/sub drop. When I looked on this page, there is no mention of either, yet I do not know if there needs to be due to the fact that it is under the Wiki Glossary. Even in the glossary, there are no sources or references to related topics of space. In addition, there is another separate yet related site about BDSM related to Wiki. Would it be better to mention it on this page or link in the glossary, if anything? Fescandon (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BDSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BDSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on BDSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

full form of BDSM should be in bold

Shouldn't full form of BDSM given in the first line of article be put in bold? If this isn't possible, then in the info-box given in the beginning of article on right hand side, the full form of BDSM can be put in bold. Like the word bondage be put in bold.Peoplesecurity (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BDSM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

use of safeword or not at all

I have removed the section that basically states that there could be scenarios where a safeword is to be ignored. This is not the case in established BDSM culture.

Regardless of scenario - this is the very cornerstone of the safeword concept in that it negates consent and conveys a desire to cease further activities. The point being that anything happening after a safeword has been ignored is no longer part of the BDSM culture.

The original editor is possibly referring to "false" safewords - phrases that in common usage imply a desire to stop, but are not the actual safeword(s) agreed by the involved parties. Although I accept that my interpretation there is OR, it is no less so than the original comments which were in any case, unsourced. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please make BDSM article a Good or a Featured article

Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles on how to do it. 182.68.12.114 (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone would have to feel motivated to take on a lot of work in order to do so... AnonMoos (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

New Changes to the articles.

I am adding some new materials from recent researches showing gender preferences for bdsm roles. i have mentioned the resources and links to the original web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris adamant (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Factual error

“The term "BDSM" is first recorded in a Usenet posting from 1991, and is interpreted as a combination of the abbreviations B/D (Bondage and Discipline), D/s (Dominance and submission), and S/M (Sadism and Masochism).”

Now “is interpreted” is pretty weasely (by whom?). But the point is that the ORIGINAL meaning, in use for decades, is only the first and the last. It was BD and SM. This should be said. DS was projected or plugged onto the acronym at a much later date. This is what linguists call “popular etymology”. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that this was around 2000 (so it seems to the young people to have always been that way).

Now this is all I’m going to say about it. It’s not worth any more of my time. My only goal is that the elite few who read talk page histories will know that I took my time to point out this error. deisenbe (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you intend to fix and source the error, the elite few don't care. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"Fix and source" is correct, and good luck with that (particularly the "source" part). There's a lengthy discussion at Talk:BDSM/Archive_4#Etymology if you're up for it. As for the quoted statement, it doesn't appear clear in the citation that the original meaning was exclusive of DS as you say. HalJor (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
HalJor -- that discussion was an elaborate gavotte about sources which seemed reputable enough, but lacked any ascertainable clarity of meaning or usefulness for this article.
I already very specifically replied to User:Deisenbe at Talk:BDSM/Archive 5#Bdsm does not include "dominant/submissive" with cites showing that D/S was part of BDSM either at the beginning, or close enough to the beginning to make no practical difference now... AnonMoos (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
P.S. User:Deisenbe -- I just noticed that in 2015 User:DavidPKendal also replied to you at length at Talk:BDSM/Archive 5#Meaning of the acronym BDSM. Please do not raise this point again without addressing what User:DavidPKendal and/or myself have previously replied to you... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2020

Change the equivalence of the top & bottom

So a top is not always a dominant and neither is a bottom always a sub. There are tops who are subs and 🔃 so it is not correct thanks for changing it :) 2A01:E0A:2AF:FC00:5DED:D453:7D2A:1E8D (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This is covered in some detail at Top, bottom, switch (BDSM) but it could be clearer here, or with a link to that article when discussing Roles. HalJor (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

From this perspective, the Kama Sutra can be considered as one of the first written resources dealing with sadomasochistic activities and safety rules. Further texts with sadomasochistic connotation appear worldwide during the following centuries on a regular basis

}} Rajesh000134679 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not of sadomasochism but for control eroticism ,affection and intimacy. Rajesh000134679 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

From this perspective, the Kama Sutra can be considered as one of the first written resources dealing with sadomasochistic activities and safety rules. Further texts with sadomasochistic connotation appear worldwide during the following centuries on a regular basis

This paragraph from bdsm history need to be edit that written sadomasochistic activities or passive masochism are describing in kamsutra but really they are described as for control eroticism,affection,intimacy. You can read kamsutra pdf and understand. Rajesh000134679 (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

From this perspective, the Kama Sutra can be considered as one of the first written resources dealing with hitting and biting for control eroticism affection and intimacy. Rajesh000134679 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is just gibberish. You need to show sources to back up your unclear motive. I have also removed the duplicate requests you made. Curved Space (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove link to Aus Leiden Freuden. Masochismus und Gesellschaft. ("Masochism in Modern Man"?)

Should I be cleaning up broken links? This book doesn't even have an article in German Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vagabond219 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

"Top and bottom in sex and BDSM" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Top and bottom in sex and BDSM. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 25#Top and bottom in sex and BDSM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

Remove the paragraphs:

It is necessary to be able to identify each person's psychological "squicks" or triggers in advance to avoid them. Such losses of emotional balance due to sensory or emotional overload are a fairly commonly discussed issue. It is important to follow participants' reactions empathetically and continue or stop accordingly. For some players, sparking "freakouts" or deliberately using triggers may be the desired outcome. Safewords are one way for BDSM practices to protect both parties. However, partners should be aware of each other's psychological states and behaviors to prevent instances where the "freakouts" prevent the use of safewords.

After any BDSM activities, it is important that the participants go through sexual aftercare, to process and calm down from the activity. After the sessions, participants can need aftercare because their bodies have experienced trauma and they need to mentally come out of the role play.

Wikipedia does not give advice. 217.42.40.30 (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

So, then, the last two paragraphs of the safety section. They're not encyclopedic, I agree. But they're BDSM characteristics and issues, and they're sourced. It looks like they just need fixing up. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
And better sources. But if anyone else wants it gone, I won't object. Such information can always be added back appropriately. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BDSM/Archive_5&oldid=1210726681"