Talk:Gag (BDSM)

Sexology and sexuality B‑class Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi, Michael 14:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC) here.[reply]

image:Herc_Gagged.JPG seems to have been deleted. How about putting a better image in its place? Michael 14:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gag snob

Gag snob was recently merged with this article, after a proposal to delete (discussion here).

I've removed what was there because it looks to be made up speculation about why people might like gags, and trying to imply that such people aren't really into bondage, only gags. The original article also contained information about how "gag snobs" post supposedly annoying comments on message boards.

The entire article appeared to be written by someone with an axe to grind against people who talk about gags a lot on message boards, making an article which both documents the behaviour he finds annoying, and makes dubious claims about their sexuality (eg, claiming that they are only able to be turned on if a gag is present, or they are not really into bondage).

So I've changed it to state how the term appears to be used from a NPOV, rather than the original author's POV, with a note that it's usually a derogatory term. Mdwh 01:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is needed at all, but I won't delete in case someone's interested in it. - Taxwoman 08:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD has overwhelmingly determined that the subject of Gag snob is notable and worthy of being covered by WP. I already chopped off half of the original article when I merged it here, and Mdwh removed 90% of what remained. I think we should respect community consensus and not use this opportunity to delete any mention of this topic. Owen× ☎ 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm being bold and deleting it (on the basis that I still don't believe we need to take up space here on an non-notable derogatory term). If other editors think it should remain, then feel free to revert it. As for the AfD result, surely that only refers to the article itself, not the content? I.e., Gag snob will still redirect here. It seems odd that an AfD result should mean that the _content_ should be preserved forever; yet if someone simply inserted the content here without creating an article, editors would be free to remove it later. Mdwh 02:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About gag snobbery

I can understand the reason for gag snobbery. Gags are the most visible, although not the most important, part of bondage gear. Think about what happens when you look at another person. You look at the face first, (if it's a woman) the breasts second, then the genitals, and only lastly the arms and legs. A gag is visible right there in the most prominent part of the body - the face - shouting out loud "this person is in bondage!" Hand restraints are usually not visible at all, because they're behind the back. And to see the leg restraints (if there are any), you have to look down at the feet. However, being bound without being gagged is more effective than being gagged without being bound - if you're not bound, you can simply remove your gag yourself. — JIP | Talk 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only pics from women?

I kindly want to show up that there are only fotos depicting WOMEN !! What does this tell us? That women need to be gagged, but men not? Please try to get a 50:50 division between male and female fotos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.227.103.74 (talk • contribs) .

There used to be a 50:50 division of gagged women and gagged men, but the images of gagged men were found to be unlicensed, and were removed. If you can find properly licensed images of gagged men, you're most welcome to add them to the article. JIP | Talk 10:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pics

I found the images very disturbing and inappropriate for a family friendly website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.112.239 (talk • contribs)

(The preceding comment was originally posted to the top of the page; I've moved it down here to respond.} 1. Wikipedia has never claimed to be "family-friendly"; you may want to review WP:5 and WP:NPOV. "Family-friendly" is definitely POV. 2. Wholesale changes to an article ought to be discussed so that a community consensus can be achieved prior to making changes. I believe you intended to act in good faith when you deleted these photos, but that your actions weren't in keeping with Wikipedia principles. (And really -- anyone who's reading an article entitled Gag (BDSM) is going to get an eyeful of text anyway!)

I believe that 1: the article had too many images, and that only a few were needed to illustrate the concept. 2: using pictures of only female models (as 212.227.103.74 pointed out) biases the article, violating WP:NPOV.

I'd like to suggest that [1] be restored to illustrate the function and use of a gag -- it does so without the model being disrobed or showing any sorts of facial contortions that indicate pain or submission. It's as "neutral" a photo as we're likely to get. Then, to illustrate the range of styles of gag, I'd like to suggest that one of [2], [3], or [4] be restored.

However, removing all the images is clearly unacceptable. -- Heath 24.53.130.213 08:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that we leave the images alone. If you have other images you'd prefer, then present them and let's discuss if they are better, or should be in addition to the existing images. We do not censor on wikipedia. The images here are clearly in the context of BDSM, as it is the title of the article. Please look into this if you are not familiar with what BDSM is. In a nutshell the images here are consensual. My personal editorial opinion is that the range of pictures is just about right. Atom 13:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would vote to remove the picture of the woman in the white bra- or at least crop down to just the face. I'm all for illustration of the device and its use, but her picture makes the page feel more pornographic than educational. I'd also vote for pictures on dummies or just the devices alone rather than on people- which would help keep this informative rather than erotic. As mentioned, I'm all for enlightenment and not being afraid of our bodies and all that, but I do feel we should avoid the page becoming overly stimulating. -- Anonymous.

They are meant to be used on people, not dummies. Do not read the article if the subject matter disturbs you or if you find an academic article on the subject inappropriate. This is quite simple. - 24.23.37.62 (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I have one question:

Where are you image Jessica Alba?--Frank3 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Victoria gagged.jpg

Image:Victoria gagged.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Victoria gagged.jpg

Image:Victoria gagged.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]