Talk:BDSM

Psychotherapy section is ridiculously lacking in neutral POV

Some quotes: "Psychiatry has an insensitive history"; "Therapists need to understand"; "The mental health profession need to recognize". Give me a break here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.81.51 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I thout the whole article was a bit "It is commonly thought......, however, ......", written like some pamphlet produced by those involved, rather than in an encyclopaedic tone. - 101.169.127.252 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

184.155.81.51 -- some people have bad memories of the aftermath or influence of the Krafft-Ebing period, or of the 1950s orthodox Freudian period, when everything but the heterosexual missionary position was considered as evidence of some kind of undesirable abnormality or pathology... AnonMoos (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Either way, the wording that IP 184.155.81.51 pointed out needs to be toned if it's still in the article, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Stating "Therapists need to understand" and/or "The mental health profession need to recognize" is the type of writing that Wikipedia should not employ. We are not supposed to state that therapists or mental health professionals need to do anything, unless the source is stating it and we attribute it to that source via in-text attribution or it's something these people actually need to do (such as being required to do). That wording is likely the result of the WP:Student editing that appears to have taken place at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be rephrased and sourced, but it represents sentiments commonly shared by many who are old enough to remember psychiatry/psychoanalysis as it used to be... AnonMoos (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. It doesn't mention BDSM, but see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/opinion/08coontz.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 for some insight into the psychiatry of the period... AnonMoos (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not from the generation of Freud, I'm definitely very familiar with his influence and how strong it used to be; his views especially affected female sexuality, a topic I am extensively researched on. Flyer22 (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No one alive today is from the "generation of Freud", and anyway it wasn't so much Freud himself (though his theories certainly had their negative aspects) as a Freudian-based orthodoxy, which in the 1950s was used to stigmatize and diagnose anyone who stepped out of their conventional assigned social roles, or who was discontented within their social roles, as "sick" and pathological... AnonMoos (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My point about "the generation of Freud" is that his views lasted well past his time (like your example shows). In the 1970s, his views of female sexuality, especially with regard to female orgasm, were so strong that feminists, such as Anne Koedt, were fighting against them. Though most of his views have been discredited (I'd certainly call them "most of his views"), some of them, such as there being "a vaginal orgasm" and "a clitoral orgasm," still remain...despite "the vaginal orgasm" never having been proven and the vast majority of research today showing the exact opposite of such division. Flyer22 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Literature on BDSM techniques

Is there any serious literature on BDSM techniques and tools analyzing safety and pain? Please no blog posts or erotica stuff, thanks Lbertolotti (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I don't have the time right now to go over the recent edits in detail, but at a glance, it appears to me as though the article is being substantially re-written based on one book, and that book, despite being released only this year, is being touted as highly influential. On Wikipedia, this is considered inappropriate, and comes under the guidelines found in reliable sources and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Since I haven't reviewed them, I don't want to revert them en masse, especially when it seems to be a good-faith effort, but I wanted to bring it up, both for the editor's sake, as well as to give others an opportunity to indicate whether these changes are appropriate or not. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, at this point, I'm going to have to bulk revert. Nearly every single paragraph added today references someone named Anne Nomis, who as far as I can tell, is a relative unknown. The fact that wording on the page resembles wording on her Twitter account, and that she has an upcoming book launch, makes me suspicious that there may be a conflict of interest here. What's more, there's been removal of sourced material with only vague hand-waving towards recent studies. The more appropriate action would be to insert point and counter-point, both with references from reliable sources to support the different views. – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The material was restored: I've reverted it again. A book by "Anne O. Nomis" (presumably a version of "Anonymous"), published by "Anna Nomis Ltd", looks to me like self-publishing, and it's hard to see how the book would have yet have achieved such wide acclaim considering it appears, according to Amazon, to have been first published only last month. If it has, there should be multiple verifiable reliable sources available to back up that assertion: I've yet to find any. The book looks interesting, but it's currently not appropriate to cite it in the article; it may be possible to reference it later if it starts to be widely cited as a source in other, independent, reliable sources. -- The Anome (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the historical information from the academic publication 'The History & Arts of the Dominatrix'. I have in addition added the original source material cited by its author, which is verifiable. You may be correct that the book may be self-published in its first edition form - I am unable to verify this either way, and the second edition is currently in press by University of Oxford Press. However certainly the author is a UCL academic on staff, and has published anonymously from what I can tell. One of the problems specific to the BDSM page, is that due to the nature of the subject of BDSM, many BDSM titles are self-published: - Jay Wiseman's books (self-published under Greenery Press) - Lady Green / Janet Hardy (self-published with partner Jay Wiseman of Greenery Press) - Dr Gloria Brame's books are all self-published. (She has a PhD and is a qualified sexologist however) - Philip Miller & Molly Devon's book is self-published (under Mystic Rose Books) etc (I could list numerous titles, all the Lulu Books listed on the page, etc) I have worked on Wikipedia's Dominatrix page for years, adding academic references from academic journals, from sociological papers, from new books as they've been published, including more recently Danielle Lindemann's book which was a sociological study book "Dominatrix: Gender, Eroticism and Control in the Dungeon". I am open-minded to changes, to enhancing neutrality, promoting balance, etc on Wikipedia articles. However I do not think the removal of helpful historical information, carefully cited with academic references which are independently verifiable, is appropriate. If there are amendments and edits to be made - I would expect those to be made in pieces as appropriate. I hope that by adding the original source material references (ie the primary sources - ancient texts and historical books), this may have aided the solution. I can remove all reference to Nomis's book entirely, and leave only her original sources cited (and verifiable), however it would seem inappropriate to steal all her research for use on Wikipedia and not acknowledge her as having been the one who undertook all the hard work and research. Scholarlyfemme (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition to my above comments, the book's author had part of her work published quite some time earlier, in the major worldwide magazine on the Dominatrix, "DDI" (Domination Directory International). I personally heard the venacular shift with Dominatrices in London and beyond about a year (ish) or so back, maybe longer, so the theoretical framework may have been developed or published elsewhere online or within the BDSM scene - I'm just not sure. Both Danielle Lindemann's book (a sociological perspective) and Anne O Nomis's book (a historical research & theoretical framework perspective) were anticipated well before they were published. There is a third book which is much anticipated but has not yet come out, and that's a PhD on the Dominatrix written some years ago by Ilsa Strix (Dominatrix name, she may publish under her real name) who may not have yet published due to her much publicized relationship with Larry Wachowski of The Matrix films fame (and how now goes by the name Lana Wachowski). Strix's work on the Dominatrix and BDSM is likely to be self-published when it is released also. However Ilsa Strix is both a well-known former pro-Domme and a PhD in psychology, and within the academic community and the lifestyle scene, these figures are all well-known and well-regarded. (Although Lindemann was more of an academic and outsider coming in to do her sociological study.) Nomis and Strix both scholars and pro-Dommes, one England-based and one American-based. I include all this information by way of context as I will be updating the Dominatrix and BDSM page with all these major books as they are released. Previous to Lindemann/Nomis/Strix, there has been no serious academic book on the pro-domme at all. Lindemann's book is the only one published by an academic publisher, the others' self-published but based on academic theses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyfemme (talk • contribs) 03:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia in general cites secondary, not primary sources, unless those primary sources are either WP:RS, or buttressed by discussion in secondary WP:RS, or by widespread acceptance in mainstream discourse. The concept of the "seven realm arts" seems to be original to this book, and does not appear to be discussed anywhere else in the literature.

None of this should be taken as criticism of the book, which may well become citable here in due course: it's just that for now it is a new source, with uncertain provenance, and not yet accepted into the general literature as a source for other, secondary, sources. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anome - Thank you for taking the time to add your comments and opinion. With BDSM topic work, there is inevitably a problem with books being frequently (I would estimate in around 90% of the case) self-published. We then move to other standards of analysing a book or publication and its standing. In the past while editing for Wikipedia, I have tended to use common-sense, and the following informal criteria: - Academic credentials of author - Standing of author within the BDSM community - Writing quality, content, carefully made claims (with veracity) - Footnoting and referencing to verifiable sources - Adoption of the book and its its ideas within the industry /scene

The majority of the BDSM books in the Wikipedia listing are not cited elsewhere in literature, again due to the self-published nature of BDSM books. In the case of Danielle Lindemann's book, her thesis was well-known of in advance, and she undertook academic articles before her book was published. Anne O Nomis's book has similarly been well-known of in advance, she has given academic talks, and the book was touted in the world's largest magazine on the Dominatrix, DDI magazine, which has been around a long time and never given space to featuring a book in this manner, which was not a paid promotion but a decision outlined in the editorial of the magazine due to the unprecedented scale and importance of the book. Hence it has quickly become known to Dominatrices around the world, along with its theory. (It may also have been published elsewhere earlier - I'm not sure.) I will see if I can locate a copy of that DDI magazine issue 77, which had the 5 page article which went out to Dominatrices all over the world, as that seems to be how the ideas and book came into popular mainstream ideology amongst Dominatrices. It will also provide the magazine editor's explanation as to why the book was so significant as he talks about there having only ever been 2 major studies on the Dominatrix - by Ilsa Strix (unpublished PhD thesis), and Anne O Nomis. Unfortunately there is not a respectable BDSM publication or journal for verification, that any of the books on BDSM are listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.123.226 (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Apologies I was not signed in Scholarlyfemme (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Contests or competitions

Mention any BDSM contests or competitions, if any. Jidanni (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think events would be most likely. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a correlation between authoritarian personality and interest in BDSM?

Any studies out there? -Mkratz (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. If there is a link, I'd suspect it would be a negative association: that is to say, that people who are right-wing authoritarians would be less likely to be interested in BDSM, and vice versa. (Sexual abuse, as opposed to consensual BDSM, would be a different matter: I'd expect that to correlate strongly with right-wing authoritarianism.) But that's only my opinion: let's look at the data, if there is any. -- The Anome (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: A bit of digging found this Slate article which cites this paper:

[1]

which states on page 145 (pdf page 14): "the SM participants scored equivalent to or lower than the non-SM comparison group on Authoritarianism, a finding that is contrary to the expectations of the psychopathology hypothesis". Can anyone find any other papers on the topic? -- The Anome (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like an item for the misconceptions section, then. --Mkratz (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, it is only one paper, and ideally we would have either multiple papers or a review article, and use WP:NPOV if studies conflicted. -- The Anome (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

---

18th century

Mkratz -- In the 18th and 19th centuries, and probably as late as the 1950s, there was a stereotype of upper-class Englishmen who had been extensively flogged in their youth at elite English boarding schools, and who in their adult years went to brothels to pay prostitutes to flog them, but were otherwise rather conventional in their attitudes. However, this only has a limited commonality with modern BDSM... AnonMoos (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Photo captions

Of the three photos in the section 'Fundamentals' why does one of them mention the continent of origin of the subject and other two don't? Either it's relevant to all or none. Also, is the same photo right to refer to its subject as a 'girl'?82.16.195.178 (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Paul W

Good catch. I've left the word "girl" in place for the time being, as diminutives like that are moderately common in BDSM contexts. We don't really cover that on the page yet, though. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

See http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php/Girl for the use of "girl" in BDSM... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Bondage means...

article deciphers bondage only in one of its semantic meaning, though , in case of BDSM, both meanings apply 1) servitude of serf, slave, etc. 2) act or restraining someone physically, 3) being under influence of abstract powers. Those meanings apply to both American and british English, in former it more often used in legal language figuratively, it seems - like being in bondage of addiction. Pair of words "bondage & discipline" in BDSM most likely supposes first meaning in first place. However article states strictly only second meaning of word. Another problem is that article is often read or quoted by people with bad English knowledge (even natively speaking) and referred as source of word's definition, which causes bashing against usage of bondage as servitude, for example, in historical context.