Talk:BDSM

Recent reversions

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

• I manually undid an edit by Johjons94 performed on July 31, 2016
• 213.143.50.168 undid my edit, stating "unexplained edit"
• I performed a good faith reversion of the undo, stating "I did indeed explain the edit. I was reverting an unexplained change from July 31."
• Enf6jv undid my reversion, stating "excuse me but why are you deleting an edit which has been there for a month and, so, I suppose, was accepted without problems?"

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:

• Enf6jv (talk · contribs) -- first and only edit was to BDSM, yet showed knowledge of edits made over a month ago
• 213.143.50.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- first and only edit was to BDSM
• Sfbbb (talk · contribs) -- few edits, all to BDSM-related topics
• PropagandaSux (talk · contribs) -- all edits to BDSM or talk pages, verbose and combative
• LiveGentle (talk · contribs) -- all edits to BDSM
• Johjons94 (talk · contribs) -- all edits to BDSM-related articles, possible tag-teaming with Sfbbb
• 8Onadea (talk · contribs) -- first and only edit was to BDSM
• Sfgdgv (talk · contribs) -- first edit to BDSM, only other edit was to my talk page
• Jlsmn75 (talk · contribs) -- see this edit, and then their edits to my talk page suggesting earlier experience

-- 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rascals-club.com/rules.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306143928/https://www.nybondageclub.com/gay-male-bdsm-leather-slave-discipline-scene.html to http://www.nybondageclub.com/gay-male-bdsm-leather-slave-discipline-scene.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160724010712/https://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf to http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217085120/http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture1.html to http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/pain/microsite/culture1.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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). 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

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071122135714/http://www.schlagabtausch-hd.de:80/sm-studie.php to http://www.schlagabtausch-hd.de/sm-studie.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.buzzle.com/articles/alternate-lifestyles-what-they-had-to-do-with-msn-chat.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/4868/file/Austria_CC_as_of_04.11.2013_de.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)