Jump to content

Talk:BDSM/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Commons Conflict strikes again

[1].--Nemissimo (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are these the links that make up the See Also section?

  • Handcuffs
  • Legcuffs
  • Thumbcuffs
  • Bondage cuffs
  • Testicle cuffs
  • Index of BDSM articles

Anyone have any idea how this could've happened or why these were chosen? --AerobicFox (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree these may be suboptimal. WP:SEEALSO provides no compelling reason why any of those links should be there. I'm not even convinced there needs to be a See also section, as this article is already very well-developed. Why not WP:BEBOLD and delete it? If someone objects, they can revert and discuss. --Meitar (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Bold it is. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article needs refs

I'll start a list below, please help add.

I'll start inserting info from these sources. Any help with that or with adding sources would be appreciated. --AerobicFox (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Image request

The current image for the section ==Parties and clubs== has nothing to do with BDSM parties and clubs. I wasn't able to find any images for this section at Wikimedia. If anybody knows where some free images are, or could upload some images they took themselves it would help. --AerobicFox (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I'm posting just to make sure everyone is okay with the changes I have been making to the article including renaming and organizing some sections. I am foreseeing this article possibly becoming too large in which case some of these sections are going to need their own articles("BDSM and the law" for example) to cover all the material and to keep this article from becoming unwieldy. I've noticed it seems a lot of the images are just randomly placed throughout the article, so I will probably be moving them around and/or replacing, removing, or inserting new images into the article. --AerobicFox (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gendering of images

Why are 90% of the images of subs and bottoms in this article images of femme women? This is creepy and sexist. For that matter, why aren't there more images of doms and tops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.11.76 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Most subs are women, so most of the images we have are of women. If you can upload some free images of male subs then please do.AerobicFox (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There are 8 female images and 7 male(not including sexually ambiguous images, and one of the female is of a domme. That is fairly balanced.AerobicFox (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed this across Wikipedia, on a lot of sexuality-related articles they do tend to have predominantly female and hetero images. I wonder if having a bit more diversity in images on sexuality articles is part of WP:CSB. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree - I thought this as I first read the article. I was glancing at the photos and felt that there seemed to be a lot of women. The photos with men are further down, and tend to show the whole body from further away, while the earlier photos are of women and their body parts. I would like to see some more photos of men, naked or near naked, as the photos of women are, nearer the top of the article.Snorgle (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ben tied.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ben tied.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge from AfD

I've just performed a fairly mechanical merge as mandated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (BDSM), and acknowledge that further tidying is required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet in the 1980s

<In the late-eighties, the Internet provided a way of finding people with specialized interest> Really, in the late-eighties? --77.185.195.147 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember that. Yes, the Internet existed then. Ever hear of Usenet? HalJor (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Alt.sex.bondage was apparently established in 1989; at that time, many end-users didn't read Usenet messages over the Internet, but the central Usenet "backbone" used the Internet... AnonMoos (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible Addition To Section 6.3: IRC

Currently: In the late-eighties, the Internet provided a way of finding people with specialized interests around the world as well as on a local level, and communicating with them anonymously.[8][106] This brought about an explosion of interest and knowledge of BDSM, particularly on the usenet group alt.sex.bondage. When that group became too cluttered with spam, the focus moved to soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm.

My suggestion would be that a few sentences be added about BDSM on IRC, (Internet Relay Chat). While usenet groups provided one method for people to find like-minded friends, IRC was just as powerful. IRC channels devoted to different forms of BDSM offered real time connections, real time conversations. For many, it was their first time actually conversing with a Dominant or submissive. The anonymity and immediacy of IRC should not be overlooked. I suggest:

...focus moved to soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm. IRC, (Internet Relay Chat) was yet another way that people who were curious or interested in the subject could make connections. The real-time component of IRC made it particularly appealing. People from around the world could easily find IRC 'channels' that matched their own interest. <end>

If I have offended anyone by this suggestion, or the way that I am submitting the suggestion, I do apologize. This is my first attempt at adding something to Wikipedia. Any advice on better ways to contribute ideas would be welcomed.

GlacierSapphire (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Usenet was important before IRC was -- ca. 1990, many people had some form of access to Usenet without having a direct IP connection to the Internet... AnonMoos (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
And BBS's were important before Usenet. I suggest a listing of several ways people connected in the past, i.e., BBS, Compuserve, Usenet, IRC, AOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailinStuff (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
BBS's could be influential in making mainly local connections, but I don't think they had quite the catalyzing effect of bringing together people from widely-separated regions for feverish discussions which "Alt.sex.bondage" did in its early hey-day... AnonMoos (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DSMV 2013

The opening is quite bad

I don't really know about BDSM and stubmled upon this article, but even after reading the first paragraph of the article I really don't have any more info on what BDSM is. "BDSM represents a continuum of practices and expressions, both erotic and non-erotic, involving restraint, sensory stimulation, role-playing, and a variety of interpersonal dynamics." What? Seriously, what, WHAT? This is just horribly vague and wide and even covers situations when parents ticle their children (sensory stimulation) or police arrest a robber (restraint), or live action role players (role-playing).88.195.102.195 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology

Identified some passages that need citation. SailinStuff (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Earliest use of "BDSM" that Google Groups turns up is June, 1991: [2] There's various indirect evidence that the term "BDSM" was probably not coined in the 1980s (or if it was, very few people had heard of it). I wonder what the latest Oxford English Dictionary has as its first citation (assuming the term is included in the OED at all)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
According to info turned up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, the earliest date for "BDSM" in the current OED is 2004, so that doesn't help too much... AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Citations
Partridge, Eric, "The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English", Routledge, 2006, Volume I, A-I, page 109: "BDSM; BD/SM noun: Bondage, domination, sadism and sasochism (sic) or sadomasochism, unified as a sexual subculture US, 1969" SailinStuff (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Dalzell, Tom (Editor) and Victor, Terry (Editor), "The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English", Routledge, 2007, page 39: "BDSM; SM, noun, bondage, domination, sadism and masochism or sadomasochism, unified as a sexual subculture US, 1969" SailinStuff (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Those are a little confusingly-worded, but they don't seem to be saying that the term "BDSM" itself was known in 1969 (if they meant to say that, then they should have said it much more clearly, and provided some concrete evidence; also, I have a 1974 paperback S-M: The Last Taboo, by Gerald and Caroline Greene which is completely ignorant of the term "BDSM"). Anyway, I don't think that the "unified as a sexual subculture US, 1969" part is really true. 1969 is around the time that the gay male Leathermen emerged as a strongly cohesive subculture. The idea of not just grouping the practitioners of one single fetish together, but also of joining the practitioners of fetish A together with practitioners of fetishes B, C, D ... through Z to form a public open broadly-based pan-fetish umbrella grouping or alignment (which is the definition of the modern BDSM movement), really didn't take hold in any significant way until after the beginning of the 1980's, as far as I can tell. One indication of this is that the first broad-interest (i.e. not exclusively gay-leather) BDSM-type journal or magazine -- the "Sandmutopia Guardian and Dungeon Journal" -- was founded in 1988. And as I indicated, there's no evidence that I've seen that the acronym "BDSM" itself was coined until 1990-1991.
I tried using Google's Advanced Books search, but it's completely ignoring the "search by date" restrictions (wanted to see what printed sources for the use of the word "BDSM" existed before 1992, or before 1995, but if I can't limit the search by date, it's quite useless)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
1. By contrast, I do not find the citations above "confusingly-worded" at all.
2. Without going into a long etymology lesson (though we may come back to that) I will simply point out that "unified" would relate to speech or writing, not to the unity of deed such as partying or political grouping. You are trying to compare two different usages of the term "unified" which are apples and oranges.
3. There is no "modern BDSM movement". BDSM is not like a political party that recruits members.
4. There is no documentation to support any sort of intentional, planned, "joining of practitioners.. to form a public open broadly-based pan-fetish umbrella grouping or alignment". That never happened.
5. There were two widely used umbrella terms in the '60's and 70's. One was BD the other was SM. If someone wanted to write something, like an advertisement for a party or a personal ad, if the writer wanted to address both the people who primarily used BD as an umbrella term and the people who primarily wanted to use SM as an umbrella term, then the writer would put the two terms together (as in the example provided in the Partridge citation) and write BD/SM - which is/was BDSM.
6. BDSM is not, technically speaking, an acronym. It is an initialism. (Look up the difference.) Each letter of the initialism stands for one word.
7. What you are reciting is what Wikipedia calls "Original Research". "However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research." See here and follow the links to "verifiability" and "original research": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy
8. The citation sources provided above are the gold standard of slang produced by professional etymologists. See here at the section "Modern times" and follow the links in that paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang_dictionary
9. At the end of the day on one hand we have a folk etymology, while on the other we have professional citation. Surely, there can be no dispute as to which we want to teach the readers of this encyclopedia. SailinStuff (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Whatever -- you can indulge in technicalistic-pedantic terminological nitpicking all you want, but the fact is that in 1969 the gay male Leathermen were fairly well-organized and -connected among themselves, but they were generally not too well-connected with those who did other things that today would be considered to fall under the general broad label BDSM -- and those who did BDSMy things but were not leathermen were in a whole series of separate boxes, so that mostly they were neither well-organized among themselves, nor did the people who did one type of thing commonly talk too much with the people who did other types of things. You may not choose to dignify it by the name of a "movement", but the whole point of the ca. mid-80's-to-early-90's trend was to break down the walls between the different boxes, and get the people who did various different things to see that they actually had a lot in common between each other. And there is no evidence that I've ever seen that the term "BDSM" was in use in 1969 or for many years afterword. The wording of both the Partridge and Dalzell/Victor entries is extremely poor, making it very difficult and obscure to try to ascertain what they meant and didn't mean to assert, but if they meant to assert anything which contradicts the preceding two sentences, then they're almost certainly wrong... AnonMoos (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Using bdsm to mean bddssm is part of the folk etymology. As such, over time, it has become one of the accepted usages of the term. I am not saying that is "wrong". I am simply saying that in the etymology of the term (which is solely what we are discussing here) the original usage was that each letter of bdsm represented one word. That is what an initialism is. It is a made-up fiction (a folk etymology) that bdsm originally stood for bddssm. There is no documentation anywhere to support that claim. SailinStuff (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
P.P.S. The biggest single factor in the spread of the folk etymology that bdsm stands for bddssm is Wikipedia BDSM page revisions using Original Research. Don't you think it is time Wikipedia stopped disseminating (false) folk etymology? -- SailinStuff
Whatever -- During the late 80's or very beginning of the 90's, when the walls between all the separate little boxes started to come down (see previous comment above), people seem to have had a great deal of difficulty coming up with a comprehensive and inclusive term for "What it is that we do that would not be limiting, so the idea of an amalgamated acronym "Bondage and Discipline / Dominance and Submission / Sadism and Masochism" was hit on. It may have been a retrofitting to a previous BD/SM combination, or it may not have been, but its wide spread and influence seems to have post-dated the BD/DS/SM amalgamation idea. Another way of saying this is that since the very first surviving Google Groups mention of BDSM is June 1991, but by February 1992 people were already joking about "BDSMNLOP"[3] the "folklore" (if that's what you want to consider it) seems to have set in rather early... In any case, Partridge/Dalzell/Victor seem to be quite muddled and/or incorrect on this subject (I have no real idea even what they may have been intending to assert), so I would not take them as the definitive last word. AnonMoos (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Please pardon me for even getting involved in the question whether BDSM is a "movement". Movement or not, this discussion is solely about the etymology of BDSM. Unlike you, I find the citations above quite clear and simple to read at face value. I do not think there are any hidden meanings in the cited dictionary entry. It speaks quite clearly. The historical event timeline you propose is another thing I'm not going to get sidetracked by. In terms of the etymology of BDSM the "Leathermen" time line or "breaking down the walls" has no direct bearing. You say the bddssm thing "may have been a retrofitting". Yes. That does appear to be the fact. I'm not saying that is bad. I'm simply saying that is part of the etymology of BDSM and the etymology as presented is obviously not accurate. It should be edited to reflect fact. We could also have an explanation of the folk etymology and how that evolved from the original if you like.  :) SailinStuff (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
If Partridge/Dalzell/Victor is so clear to you, then maybe you can explain it to me, because everything that can be interpreted as a simple straightforward statement is blatantly factually wrong if so interpreted, leaving the total overall meaning quite murky and muddy to me. 1) Are they saying that the term "BDSM" itself existed and was in reasonably common use in 1969? If so, then they're blatantly factually wrong, as far as all the evidence that I've ever seen. 2) Are they claiming that there was an overall BDSM "unified... sexual subculture" in 1969? If so, then they're blatantly factually wrong -- in 1969 there was a well-organized gay Leathermen subculture, but most other things in the current BDSM realm were quite fragmented and dispersed. 3) Are they claiming that "BDSM" comes from "BD"+"SM". If so, then it's theoretically possible that they could be narrowly technically right (it's hard to tell, since there's no supporting evidence whatsoever, of course), but they're practically and functionally mostly wrong, since there's very good reason to believe that the term "BDSM" didn't start widely spreading, or become influential, until after it was already interpreted/reinterpreted as BD+DS+SM.
With this very lousy track record, I would much rather trust Google groups search than Partridge/Dalzell/Victor, because Partridge/Dalzell/Victor either don't know what they're talking about, or if they do know what they're talking about, then they chose to word their entries rather poorly in a very confusing way. AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Re 1): I don't think "reasonably common use" ever has anything to do with a dictionary definition or dating the origin of a word. So, let's not try to trump up some nonexistent criteria here. Re 2): You seem to be trying to define and describe a subculture. By contrast, the citations above are dictionary citations. Dictionary citations define a word. It is apples to oranges to talk about the subculture itself. Re 3): Good. That is really all we need to concern ourselves about. I'm glad we can agree that the citations above are technically correct. SailinStuff (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It's somewhat unfortunate for you that you're strong on narrow semi-pedantic technicalisms, but quite weak when it comes to putting things together in any way that would be useful for improving the article "BDSM". As far as I can tell, whenever Partridge/Dalzell/Victor make a statement which can be interpreted as a concrete factual assertion about things that went on in the real world, then such assertions are either blatantly factually wrong (and unsupported by any factual evidence whatsoever), and/or rather useless for practically improving article BDSM. None of your glosses and quibblings have done anything to change that bottom line. AnonMoos (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
(←) Nowhere in the citations you've quoted does it say that that's the etymology, only a definition. We don't know where they got their definition from (since there are no citations in the latest version), nor does it expound upon the possible change in wording over time. As a result, it tells us nothing at all about the validity or invalidity of the overlapping initialism. For all that that tells us, the overlapping initialism could have been the original and later shortened to the straight initialism that you've cited above. We may believe that not to be the case, but is there anything in the slang dictionary that states that that is, and always was, the etymology of the term?
Yes, the dictionary gives us a definition. That's what dictionaries do. No, the dictionary citation does not explain to us in detail how the editors arrived at that definition. Dictionaries customarily do not do that. That is not a valid indictment of the citation. I have no idea what you mean by "overlapping initialism". We need to remember and understand what "etymology" means. I suggest you look it up. And etymology does not change by whim. An etymology is based on the factual research of etymologists. Pursuant to the research of the qualified etymologists cited, they put the origin of the term "BDSM" at 1969. Certainly, their work can be impeached. To do that, you will need to produce a comparably (or better) qualified and acknowledged expert in the field with opposing research and conclusion. For my part, I am perfectly open to such a showing of fact. I seek the truth. SailinStuff (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I suggest you look up what etymology is. You're confounding a definition from Partridge with an etymology by saying that they're etymologists, then saying that they've provided a definition. While this is, of course, the normal case for a dictionary, as has previously been stated, OED says BDSM comes from 2004, which is patently false. They too have professional etymologists, therefore I don't think we can consider either source as unequivocally reliable. It used to be that Partridge provided citations for their definitions, which is why I brought that up. Without that, and with some significant question as to the reliability of the information, it doesn't have a place on Wikipedia.
As for the "overlapping initialism", let's see...we've been talking about "BDSM" meaning "Bondage, discipline, sadism, and masochism" (where each letter stands for a single word) and we've been talking about "BDSM" with a slightly longer form of "BDDSSM" or "BD/DS/SM" where the letters overlap in the "BDSM" initialism. Which of the two seems most likely when referring to an "overlapping initialism"? – RobinHood70 talk 10:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, there's a big difference between "theoretically possible that they could be narrowly technically right" and "the citations above are technically correct". Please don't take people's words out of context. – RobinHood70 talk 04:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not take anyone's words out of context. If you prefer the longer quotation you used, i.e., "theoretically possible that they could be narrowly technically right" serves us just as well. Where we all agree that the experts' conclusions are possible, then we must embrace the experts' conclusions absent a showing of an equally qualified expert in opposition. SailinStuff (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
This site has some degree of insight into the etymology, though how authoritative/reliable their info is is certainly up for debate in its own right. – RobinHood70 talk 05:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I can not believe you would attempt to cite this web page authoritatively. 1) That practice of citing web pages is specifically explained by Wikipedia editing rules as not being an acceptable source. 2) The page you cite was created in 2009 according to Internic's Whois database. That means it is likely that web page copied its information from this Wikipedia page and now you are trying to prove the misinformation on this Wikipedia page by citing the other web page that likely copied its information here!!! 3) If you doubt the "info" - why in the world would you cite it? Let's use Wikipedia's citation and source rules. (See my link above and read up on it if need be.) 4) That web page offers absolutely no etymological qualifications or professionally recognized experience upon which to base their claims. Indeed, we don't even know who wrote it!!!!! SailinStuff (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
That's nice -- the web page may not be a "reliable source", but the authors of it seem to be earnestly and factually trying to find out things by painstaking historical researches (as opposed to dogmatically pontificating from a position of ignorance). Why is it that you always seem to feel that many things are "copied from Wikipedia" in cases where this seems unlikely in the extreme and/or would require a time machine?? The BDSM=BD/DS/SM explanation was reasonably well known by 1992 according to Google Groups, so it cannot be "copied from Wikipedia"[sic]... AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you can't believe I would attempt to cite it authoritatively, as I said right in my statement that I wasn't trying to. Please read my entire statement next time. Nevertheless, we now have at least three possible dates for the term BDSM, one of which is patently wrong, one of which we don't know anything about its accuracy, and one that shows where their research is coming from (and where said research matches the initial estimate provided in this thread). Clearly, they did not copy from Wikipedia, as their research does not entirely match with Wikipedia's, and they provide the source of their research. – RobinHood70 talk 10:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(←) I can remember being introduced to the BDDSSM concept as far back as the late 90s or maybe early 2000s. While I'll grant that that's personal experience, it says to me that no matter what we put on the page, we'll need whatever sources we can dig up, and that Wikipedia itself wasn't a significant factor in spreading folk etymology initially, since it didn't exist at the time. I do agree that BD/SM predates the BDDSSM concept, but again, we're both going on personal experience.

As far as reliability of sources, I've yet to find any source I consider reliable based on Wikipedia's standards. The simple fact is that there is no authoritative source of any kind for BDSM. About the closest to that we can get are old stand-bys like The Leatherman's Handbook.

I also dispute your disputing the phrase "modern BDSM movement". It may not be a "movement" per se, but whatever word you wish to use ("culture" or "community", perhaps?), what exists now in most major cities in terms of pansexual BDSM didn't exist 20 years ago, and while it did exist in the gay leathermen's community 20 and even 40 years ago, it looked very different than what it does today. So, there's certainly a modern culture, at the very least. – RobinHood70 talk 19:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If you will look back through the history of the Wikipedia BDSM page, you will observe that the original page treated the term, BDSM, accurately and correctly as a four letter initialism standing for four words. That was changed without citation. That is against Wikipedia editing policy. Over time, it has gone back and forth a few times. I hope to put an end to that seesaw with this discussion and by providing citations. I think it is quite clear that many people come to this page and copy what is here for their own web pages or learn from this page and disseminate that information. I did not intend to imply that the original (false) folk etymology originated on Wikipedia. Indeed, it did not.
I will not quibble with the word subculture. I'm glad we agree that there is no bdsm "movement". The fact that the face or makeup of a subculture changes over time seems to be neither here nor there as far as etymology is concerned. Etymology is not directly concerned with those things. Likewise, it is beyond the scope of this discussion to try to validate or invalidate an authoritative source for BDSM in general. Here, we are focused strictly and solely on the etymology of the four letter term, BDSM. And for that purpose, we can identify an authoritative source. (See the citations above.) SailinStuff (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I am not "going on personal experience" at all. SailinStuff (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology Edit Break

Okay, something occurs to me here: perhaps we're going about this the wrong way. We have multiple sources saying multiple things, and there are questions as to the reliability of any of them. 1969 seems absurdly early for the term according to preliminary research and the definition is confusing and contradicts a common belief in the community. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, this means we'd need multiple high-quality sources to make that claim, and right now, we don't have multiple high-quality sources. Similarly, the early 1990s seems reasonable from basic research, but there's no solid evidence other than claims made on various websites. Lastly, 2004 claimed by OED is clearly far too late and easily contradicted by numerous sources.

So, my suggestion is that rather than claim a specific origin for what BDSM stands for, we rewrite the section that SailinStuff tagged as needing a citation (and quite rightly so) to indicate that sources are contradictory, and that the two primary beliefs are that it originally stood for either "Bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism (or sadomasochism)" or "Bondage and discipline, domination and submission, and sadism and masochism (or sadomasochism)". We'd probably want to separate out the "or sadomasochism", since that's also questioned in different sources.

Does that sound like a better approach? – RobinHood70 talk 10:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

RobinHood70 -- one misconception: The OED doesn't claim anything about 2004 being the first use (the OED apparently doesn't have a separate entry for "BDSM" at all); 2004 is just the year of the earliest quotation containing "BDSM" which happens to occur among the OED's general collected cites.
Also, I'm not sure that Usenet messages in the Google Groups archives should be directly linked from the article, but one thing for which Google Groups is very solid and reliable is supplying "no later than" dates: the term "BDSM" was in use no later than 1991, and it was understood as a comprehensive everything-but-the-kitchen sink "BDSMNLOP" BD/DS/SM amalgamation no later than 1992. Anything which contradicts the Google Groups "no later than" dates is automatically suspect... AnonMoos (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
About the OED date, 2004, which is far later than the other dates (although I see below that this discussion has been cleared up, so this is just a as a matter of interest). The OED is Britain-based so I'm guessing it primarily collects examples of usage from that perspective. 2004 is about spot on for the first time I saw BDSM used in Britain. That's about when I saw it first here in that form (through the internet, and used by an American writer). It makes sense that a term coined elsewhere took a while to reach Britain, and so be recorded in Oxford by the OED. Penguin2006 (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's instructions to editors I read the suggestion that when people are becoming emotional to just drop discussion for a couple of days and allow people to cool off and consider things. I did follow that suggestion and I am glad I did. I do think we are making progress in these last messages. I do see common ground and I do believe we will improve the accuracy of the BDSM page. I have to thank AnonMoos for correcting some misconceptions. My research confirms what AnonMoos recently tells us. He is correct that the OED does not have an entry for BDSM. Therefore, we do not have accredited sources in conflict. AnonMoos also correctly points out that Google Groups archives are useless to doucument a "first use" date of or for anything. That record, as AnonMoos correctly points out, is a record that documents usage "no later than" the example. So too, all examples whether in print or in media are examples of "not later than". So that is another misconception we have to thank AnonMoos for clarifying. SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Following the example of AnonMoos, I think we simply need to correct a few more misconceptions that are confusing this discussion and then we can likely find some truth to share with Wikipedia's readers. SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A misconception that AnonMoos seems to find disconcerting is the Partridge use of the words "unify" and "subculture". AnonMoos initially took that to mean that the dictionary citations took it upon themselves to make a broad sociological statement. I think that is reading far too much into those simple dictionary entries. Please consider: SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Beauty Queen by Patricia Nell Warren; Morrow, 1978 - Fiction - 287 pages; Page 48: "Many gays of both sexes feared and shunned those who preached what was known as S&M on the East Coast, B&D on the West Coast." and: SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Male sexuality: A Guide to Sexual Fulfillment by Bernie Zilbergeld; Bantam Books, 1978 - Self-Help - 411 pages; Page 64: "While we're on the subject of current fads, we should mention the resurgence of sado-masochism (S&M), also called bondage and discipline (B&D)." and: SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Male Sexuality by Bernie Zildergeld; Bantam Books, 1981 - Self-Help - 411 pages; Page 64: "While we're on the subject of current fads, we should mention the resurgence of sado-masochism (S&M), also called bondage and discipline (B&D)." and: SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Sex: The Facts, the Acts, and Your Feelings by Michael Carrera; Crown Publishers, 1981 - Psychology - 448 pages; Page 145: "B&D means Bondage and Discipline and is a kind of sadomasochistic 'scene'." and: SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Becoming A Sexual Person by Robert T. Francoeur; Wiley, 1982 - Psychology - 752 pages; Page 430 “bondage and dominance is called B&D”; page 431 “Actual S&M and B&D behavior may be discussed more today, and people may fantasize about it”; Page 537 “Bondage and Discipline (B&D). Erotic bondage involves the securing of a person during sexual intercourse” Page 535 “The term S&M has different meanings in different parts of the country. S&M can mean sexual mastery and submission, SM&S. On the East Coast, “S” may refer to the dominant or sadistic role and “M” to the masochistic or submissive role. On the West Coast, the reverse interpretation is common, with “S” referring to the sumbissive or slave role and the “M” to the master or dominant role." and: SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Dominant Women Submissive Men: An Exploration in Erotic Dominance and Submission by Gini Graham Scott; Praeger, 1983 - Psychology - 257 pages; Page ix “This kind of erotic activity, focused on the reversal of power roles, is sometimes referred to as a form of sadism and masochism (S&M) or of bondage and discipline (B&D). Some people use these terms interchangeably to refer to a wide variety of sexual, erotic and recreational activities that involve a consensual power exchange between partners.” SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the citations above, we can readily see that in the mid to late 20th century some people used the initials B&D to refer to all things kinky (what the dictionaries cited refer to as a subculture) and other people used S&M to refer to all things kinky (what the dictionaries cited refer to as a subculture). When a speaker or writer of that time wanted to address everyone kinky (everyone in the subculture), and wanted everyone to know they were being addressed, then the speaker or writer would often say (or write) "BD/SM" (as is noted in the dictionary citations) or "B&D / S&M" or B/D/S/M and so on. SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That fact does not disturb the history AnonMoos cites earlier in this discussion. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Hopefully, this clears up that misconception. The dictionary citations above do not challenge any historical view of BDSM or the history of BDSM. The dictionary citations above are strictly limited to describe terminology and usage of terminology. SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, noting the dates on the citations above, it is readily apparent that a date of 1969 does not seem overly early at all. SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the reason, in the mid 20th century some people/kinksters/subculturists used S&M as a catch-all umbrella phrase to describe their subculture and activities while other people/kinksters/subculturists used B&D to describe the same subculture and activities. Thus, putting the two terms together was merely an act of "unification" (as the dictionary citations note) of "subculture" terminology. BDSM, in all its different written forms has always been a catch-all, umbrella term. Indeed, it was coined by joining two catch-all umbrella terms that meant the same thing. Two umbrellas into one umbrella = one umbrella term. SailinStuff (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your past comments were poorly received because it seemed like you were trying to use very brief and semi-cryptic entries in generalist reference works -- accompanied by no supporting evidence whatsoever -- to force onto the article things which people with long memories and/or much greater knowledge of the subject knew to be factual falsehoods. Some of your new quotations are interesting, but none of them is as early as the 1974 book I cited at the beginning of this discussion, and none of them casts much direct light on the chronology of "BDSM" as a consolidated four-letter unit. Your comments on "unified as a sexual subculture" mean that you're actually admitting that if one aspect (at least) of the Partridge/Dalzell/Victor entries is interpreted in a basic literal unelaborated manner, then it results in a factual falsehood, so I thank you for that... AnonMoos (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to communicate better.  :) At any rate, I'm certainly innocent of trying to force anything into the article. If I were trying to do that, I would not have opened this discussion prior to editing the article. Your 1974 citation (I own that book as well) does not seem to bear on the topic at hand. You simply note that BDSM is not in that publication. SailinStuff (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
But BDSM is not restricted to "a consolidated four-letter unit". We already covered the example of BD/SM as noted in the dictionary citations. Read Murray and Murrell above for similar examples relating to SM. SM is not restricted to a "consolidated" two-letter "unit". Just like SM=S/M=S&M=S and M and so on, so too BD/SM is the same as B/D/S/M or B&D/S&M or BDSM and so on. Indeed, in Google's group archives one writer uses BDSM and SMBD interchangeably in the same paragraph! So there are may ways of writing BDSM. SailinStuff (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Re Partridge/Dalzell/Victor, as I wrote earlier I can not imagine the interpretation that came to your mind. I find nothing in that short sentence that brings up organized groups. They are talking about a word. They tell how the word originated. B&D + S&M. ...shrug... That is simple. That is not a "factual falsehood". And at any rate, we can be more clear on the BDSM page that nothing in the etymology of the term relates to the historical evolution of the practices. Those are two different topics. And I think it was beyond the imagination of the dictionary editors that someone would interpret their explanation of the origin of the word as a statement on the history of the practices. So if you keep it in context there is nothing misleading about their dictionary entry. SailinStuff (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
AnonMoos, re: "Some of your new quotations are interesting, but none of them is as early as the 1974 book I cited at the beginning of this discussion, and none of them casts much direct light on the chronology of "BDSM" as a consolidated four-letter unit." SailinStuff (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, they do. The point is that I showed historical citations that referred to and described the concurrent existence and usage of two different umbrella terms that were used functionally interchangeably. Recognizing that, we readily see how and why our lexicon evolved to put them together to form what we now know and recognize as BDSM. SailinStuff (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in 1969 practitioners of fetish A were generally not in meaningful sustained communication with practitioners of fetishes B, C, D... Z; and practitioners of fetish A often felt that they didn't have much in common with practitioners of fetishes B, C, D... Z; and practitioners of fetish A sometimes felt that practitioners of fetishes B, C, D... Z were filthy disgusting perverts of the lowest type. Also, unless they happened to be gay male leathermen, people could have great difficulty finding and getting in contact with fellow-practitioners of their preferred fetish. I'm sorry, but I really don't see how this situation can be described as BDSM being "unified as a sexual subculture"[sic] within the accepted meanings of English words.

Also, no matter how many times you find "B&D" and "S&M" used in the same book, or sometimes even in the same sentence, that doesn't provide direct evidence as to when these two were directly juxtaposed as a single term (whether "BD/SM" or "B/D/S/M" or "BDSM" or whatever) -- but NOT "B&D" and "S&M" as two different terms which happen to be mentioned in proximity. My 1974 book is as fully relevant as any your quotations, since "S-M" occurs in the title of the book, and "B&D" is the title of one of its chapters -- and this 1974 book is also just as lacking in any direct evidence as to when the four-letter term BDSM (or "BD/SM" or "B/D/S/M" or whatever) started to come into use... AnonMoos (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know where you get these ideas. Certainly people communicated with each other before the internet and before there were organized groups. In my area, I met a lot of people through the local leather shop, the proprietor of which was a kinkster. We also communicated through written/printed ads in local, regional and even national publications. That is confirmed and documented in many places, including in Google groups where in 1991 we find the following entry: "The B&D&S&M personals in the paper here reach a far wider audience of blue noses than any net forum possibly could". Also, Mistress Michelle Peters writes: "Even at early age I had a dominant personality. By 1963 I started looking at the Ridged Bondage Roster (a memographed (sic) sheet of adds) , Centurians catalog with ads and also a rag sheet put out by Barbara Behr in Chicago. By 1964 most of the rag sheets had disappeared , in there (sic) place B&D magazines. From 1964 to 1975 I answered ads in those magazines and met with people." People communicated with each other. SailinStuff (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
One of those print ads from circa 1973 in OBEAH Magazine, Vol 8, No 1, page 43 reads: "B/D-S/M indulgence should be a well though out venture." That is an example of BDSM in print. SailinStuff (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
But it should be noted that even though I provide an example above, we do not need to do primary research and search out specific examples of BDSM in print prior to the internet. The dictionary citations I provided at the beginning of this discussion do that for us. If I look up "ok" in Webster's, Webster's tells me the origin of the term is circa 1839. If I look up "byte" in Webster's, Webster's tells me the origin of the term is 1962. Webster's does not provide specific documentation or citation for its entries. Similarly, Partridge's does not provide specific documentation or citation for its dating of BDSM. This is standard procedure in dictionary entries. Dictionaries are subjected to publication by reputable publishing houses. That publication process subjects our dictionaries to critical peer, academic and professional review. If their entries were not reliable, we would hear of it. In the case of Partridge's, I provided links above where you found peer review and a summary of their impeccable professional reputation. SailinStuff (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It is not legitimate to assail the professional reference sources I cited at the beginning of this discussion without a showing of like professional reference. Those are the rules of editing Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's instructions to editors regarding evidence and citations. To simply cling mindlessly to the old rumors and stories about the etymology of BDSM is not helpful at getting to the truth and fact of the matter. SailinStuff (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to over-exaggerate the differences between the pre-BDSM-movement era and the post-BDSM-movement era, but previously you were attempting to use the very brief and semi-cryptic Partridge/Dalzell/Victor entries (which are of course unsupported by any specific evidence) to try to completely ignore the very substantial differences which did in fact exist between 1969 and 1999 -- and that isn't right either.
In 1969, it was very difficult for a person in the United States who did not live in a big city, and did not have exclusive control over a mailbox (and therefore didn't want exotic and incriminating items to arrive in that mailbox) to find ANY ACCURATE AND USEFUL INFORMATION AT ALL about BDSM other than patronizing pseudo-academic studies of the Krafft-Ebing type (which were condescendingly pitying at best, harshly condemning at worst), or sensationalistic drugstore paperback or drive-in B movie trash. And a rubber fetishist, say, might not have thought that he had much in common with a spanking person, and vice versa. There were little pockets of mainly single-fetish-practicing groups (most notably the gay male leathermen), but for many people who were not willing (for any number of good reasons) to advertise in the classifieds of sleazy "underground" or "alternative" rags and/or who did not live in big cities, it could be quite difficult to find and get in contact with people who had similar interests to yourself. I really don't see how the situation of 1999 can be considered at all the same as the situation of 1969... AnonMoos (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we're drifting a little far afield here.
SailinStuff: first, as an aside, it's not necessary to sign every paragraph unless you're interjecting or responding to an interjection. Normally, editors try to avoid interjections in order to avoid confusion, so signing once at the end is sufficient.
To the main point, what exactly is it about the article that you propose to change? Let's focus on that and not get lost in debates about what did or didn't happen forty years ago. My understanding is that you want to remove any reference to D/s from the etymology of BDSM. Is that correct? If so, what can you provide in terms of references that directly support that change? The Partridge definition is just that: a definition. It makes no claim as to the etymology beyond, perhaps, indicating that the term BDSM came into use in 1969. – RobinHood70 talk 09:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Robinhood70! What a welcome voice of reason. (And thanks for the signing tip.) No, I do not "want to remove any reference to D/s from the etymology of BDSM". Because the folk etymology has been presented as fact for so long - there are many people who see BDSM as BDDSSM. And that is fine. There is nothing "wrong" with that. BDDSSM, then, while not part of the origin of BDSM, has become part of the etymology of BDSM and should be included in its place with its rightful, factual explanation. My interest and suggestion is to present fact as fact, and to present all the facts so when someone reads the page, that person gets all the facts and documentation to support those facts.
I fully agree with you that a dictionary entry is simply a dictionary entry. That's what it is, and that's all it is. We learn what it teaches us, we embrace the ramifications of that lesson and we move on. Frankly, I thought other editors would look up the entries I cited for themselves for the sake of confirmation and to read the entire entries. Apparently, I was mistaken. At any rate, I returned to the library and copied the entries in their entirety. I will post them below for the convenience of the other editors, then I will address the constructive issue of how I think we might improve the accuracy and documentation of the BDSM article.


Citations:

(1) Partridge, Eric, "The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English", Routledge, 2006, Volume I, A-I, page 109

BDSM; BD/SM noun Bondage, domination, sadism and sasochism (sic) or sadomasochism, unified as a sexual subculture US, 1969

  • -- Harold Wentworth and Stuart Berg Flexner, Dictionary of American Slang p. 675, 1976
  • I decided to make a pilgrimage to 10a Dryden Street, where the modern age of British BDSM began with the opening of John Sutcliffe’s Atomage – Claire Mansfield and John Mendelssohn, Dominatrix, p. 192, 2002
  • Even fashion is taking a lead from the BDSM scene. Black leather, chokers, spikes and high heels have all graced the catwalks over the last year or so. – Code, p. 62, January, 2002

(2) Dalzell, Tom (Editor) and Victor, Terry (Editor), "The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English", Routledge, 2007, page 39

BDSM; SM, noun, bondage, domination, sadism and masochism or sadomasochism, unified as a sexual subculture US, 1969


As to how the article can be improved, I note there are two sections/areas of the article that discuss/refer to the etymology of BDSM. Both areas are blatantly based on original research and supposition and are in desperate need of revision with citation.

First article passage in need of revision (the second paragraph in the article):

"The term BDSM is believed to have been coined as a compound initialism in the 1990s to combine communities and practices that had a significant amount of crossover – bondage and discipline (B&D or B/D), dominance and submission (D&S or D/s), and sadomasochism or sadism and masochism (S&M or S/M).[citation needed] BDSM is currently frequently used as a catch-all phrase to include a wide range of activities, forms of interpersonal relationships, and distinct subcultures which may or may not fit well into the original three intended categories. With an ethos of "your kink is OK!" many BDSM communities welcome anyone with a non-normative streak who identifies with the community; this may include cross-dressers, extreme body mod enthusiasts, animal players, latex or rubber aficionados, and others."

Clearly, that paragraph is founded in rumor and what Wikipedia calls "Original Research" (which is banned from article inclusion.) To correct this paragraph, several different approaches are possible. For example:

We could write: The term BDSM was long believed to have been coined as a compound initialism in the 1990s to combine communities and practices that had a significant amount of crossover – bondage and discipline (B&D or B/D), dominance and submission (D&S or D/s), and sadomasochism or sadism and masochism (S&M or S/M). However, no documentation has ever been found to support that theory. Therefore, that theory is what is known as a folk etymology (link to Wikipedia's Folk Etymology page). Indeed, the origin of the term is more accurately placed as circa 1969 and was created by joining B&D and S&M to form BDSM. (Partridge footnote) BDSM has always been used as a catch-all phrase to include a wide range of activities, forms of interpersonal relationships, and distinct subcultures. With an ethos of "your kink is OK!" many BDSM communities welcome anyone with a non-normative streak who identifies with the community; this may include cross-dressers, extreme body mod enthusiasts, animal players, latex or rubber aficionados, and others.

I think that would be impeccably accurate and inclusive at the same time. However, there are other ways to handle the revision. What are your thoughts? I suggest we deal first with this paragraph and then deal with the Etymology section. Do you find that a meritorious approach? SailinStuff (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It is the case that D/S has always been included in (part of) B&D, S&M and BDSM. D/S was never "not included", it simply was not originally broken out as a separate, notable part. I think we can explain that quite succinctly in the Etymology section. If I need to provide period citation to support what I've just said, I can do that. SailinStuff (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. Perhaps it is unclear to begin the paragraph with an inaccurate statement. Perhaps readers would be best served if we started the paragraph with a statement of accuracy like this:

The origin of the term BDSM is circa 1969 and was created by joining B&D and S&M to form BDSM. (Partridge footnote) BDSM has always been an inclusive term. BDSM was long believed to have been coined as a compound initialism in the 1990s to combine communities and practices that had a significant amount of crossover – bondage and discipline (B&D or B/D), dominance and submission (D&S or D/s), and sadomasochism or sadism and masochism (S&M or S/M). However, no documentation has ever been found to support that theory. Therefore, that theory is what is known as a folk etymology (link to Wikipedia's Folk Etymology page). BDSM has always been used as a catch-all phrase to include a wide range of activities, forms of interpersonal relationships, and distinct subcultures. With an ethos of "your kink is OK!" many BDSM communities welcome anyone with a non-normative streak who identifies with the community; this may include cross-dressers, extreme body mod enthusiasts, animal players, latex or rubber aficionados, and others.

Please let me know what you think. SailinStuff (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the citations. At least when I looked at the site, it appeared that a subscription was required, so I suspect that's why nobody else looked up the terms for themselves. My main concern here is that, unless I missed something, even in the citations you provided, there's no clear evidence that it was only BD and SM that were combined into an initialism, as opposed to BD, DS, and SM being combined as a compound initialism. It then becomes a question of whether the definition is meant to be prescriptive (in other words, stating clearly that the DS was not originally part of the compound initialism) or descriptive (in other words, making no statement whatsoever, merely describing one set of words commonly ascribed to the initialism). The references certainly do establish that 1969 is a reasonable date of origin, given that the term also appeared in a slang dictionary in 1976. Saying it originated in the 1990s is clearly incorrect.
My counter-proposal, based on that, is the following: "The term BDSM dates back to 1969,(Partridge footnote) however the origin of the term BDSM is unclear, and is believed to have been formed either from joining the terms B&D and S&M, or perhaps as a compound initialism from B&D, D&S, and S&M.(Citation needed) Regardless of its origin, BDSM has always been used as a catch-all phrase to include a wide range of activities, forms of interpersonal relationships, and distinct subcultures. With an ethos of "your kink is OK!" many BDSM communities welcome anyone with a non-normative streak who identifies with the community; this may include cross-dressers, extreme body mod enthusiasts, animal players, latex or rubber aficionados, and others."
We'd need to figure out how to fit the links and long forms of the two-letter initialisms into that, however, as it would look a little odd to have B&D and S&M expanded in the first part of the either clause, then only D&S expanded in the second part. I'm suggesting leaving the Citation Needed flag in there, along with the Partridge footnote, in the hopes that clear evidence can be found one way or the other. – RobinHood70 talk 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to be a perpetual naysayer, but I really don't see how the Partridge/Dalzell/Victor entries in their bald and unelaborated form as posted above (i.e. very brief and semi-cryptic, with no supporting evidence) are practically useful for improving the "BDSM" article in almost any way. In particular, the "1969" date is pretty much useless because even after all this extended discussion I still don't have any idea what "1969" is supposed to mean in this context. Is 1969 supposed to be the date of a "unified [BDSM] sexual subculture"? If so, then that sounds like the next thing to arrant nonsense to me. Is 1969 supposed to be the date when the consolidated 4-letter term "BDSM" came into use? If so, I have a hard time believing such a claim. Is 1969 the date of the first known semi-ephemeral smooshing together of the two separate terms "S-M" and "B&D" -- but without much frequency of usage or lasting influence until much later? If so, I could believe that, but I really don't see how it requires a drastic rewriting of this article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would be very interested to know what you would consider to be "clear evidence". Thanks.


RobinHood70: Thank you for your counter proposal. It does have merit and I will never reject an opportunity to improve the accuracy and integrity of the article. It occurs to me that the slight differences between our proposals may actually work themselves out as we tackle the Etymology section/paragraph. If you are amenable, I will offer a suggestion for editing that short section and let's see where that leaves us. I believe we will grow closer as we delve deeper. SailinStuff (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology Edit Break 2

The first thing I notice about the Etymology section of the article is that it already says most of the same things I've been saying in this discussion. As it currently reads, the section we're looking at is:

"The terms "Sadism" and "Masochism" are derived from the names of the Marquis de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, based on the content of the authors' works. In 1843 the Hungarian physician Heinrich Kaan published Psychopathia sexualis ("Psychopathy of Sex"), a writing in which he converts the sin conceptions of Christianity into medical diagnoses. With his work the originally theological terms "perversion", "aberration" and "deviation" became part of the scientific terminology for the first time.[dubious – discuss] The German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft Ebing introduced the terms "Sadism" and "Masochism" to the medical community in his work Neue Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der Psychopathia sexualis ("New research in the area of Psychopathy of Sex") in 1890.[116]"


"In 1905 Sigmund Freud described "Sadism" and "Masochism" in his Drei Abhandlungen zur Sexualtheorie ("Three papers on Sexual theory") as diseases developing from an incorrect development of the child psyche and laid the groundwork for the scientific perspective on the subject in the following decades. This led to the first time use of the compound term Sado-Masochism (German "Sado-Masochismus") by the Viennese Psychoanalytic Isidor Isaak Sadger in its work Über den sado-masochistischen Komplex ("Regarding the sadomasochistic complex") in 1913.[117]"


"In the past BDSM activists turned repeatedly against these conceptual models, originally deriving from singular historical figures and implying a clear pathological connotation. They argued that there is no common sense in attributing a phenomenon as complex as BDSM to two individual humans, as well one might speak of "Leonardism" instead of Homosexuality.[citation needed] The BDSM scene tried to distinguish themselves with the expression "B&D" for bondage and discipline from the sometimes pejorative connotations of the term "S&M".[citation needed] The initialism "BDSM" was probably coined in the early 1990s in the subculture connected with the Usenet newsgroup alt.sex.bondage.[citation needed] The earliest posting with the term which is now preserved in Google Groups dates from June 1991. Later the dominance and submission dimension was integrated into the connotation of BDSM, creating the compound initialism common today.[citation needed]"

Please note that the first two paragraphs above explain that kinky things were first called S&M. The paragraph immediately above tells us that while S&M existed as an umbrella term, B&D was imagined/coined/created/evolved and some kinksters began using B&D as their umbrella term. Then the paragraph just above tells us that “Later the dominance and submission dimension was integrated into the connotation of BDSM”.

Excellent! We are all in agreement here, I think. That would include Partridge, et. al., whose citation fits perfectly within this paragraph of the BDSM article's explanation and timeline.

I admire the first two paragraphs of the Etymology section. They are, I think, in some ways a model of what a well written and documented encyclopedia article should look like. If we can provide comparable documentation for the third paragraph, I think we will make a positive contribution to the article. SailinStuff (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the third paragraph are problematic. They read:

"In the past BDSM activists turned repeatedly against these conceptual models, originally deriving from singular historical figures and implying a clear pathological connotation. They argued that there is no common sense in attributing a phenomenon as complex as BDSM to two individual humans, as well one might speak of "Leonardism" instead of Homosexuality.”

The first problem I see in the above two sentences is an absence of citation. As you may have noticed from the citations I have provided in this discussion, I have studied this topic. In my studies, I have never found any mention in any authoritative source material that there ever was a common or widespread discussion or argument concerning “attributing a phenomenon as complex as BDSM to two individual humans”. This sounds like an individual's experience. It sounds like the writer was trying to come up with a reason for the emergence of B&D and this was the best idea he could come up with. Perhaps whoever wrote those sentences had that discussion with someone. I do not know. But I do know that I can find no reference to this issue ever being a significant topic. Therefore, I doubt these two sentences can ever be sourced in a reliable way. They smack of one writer's personal perspective. That is not good encyclopedia material.

The second problem I see in the two sentences above is that they are just plain wrong. Those two sentences imply that all kinksters rebelled against, or found fault with, the use of SM as their descriptive term of choice. That is not correct. In point of fact, many kinksters clung to the use of SM as their preferred umbrella term after the emergence of B&D. Particularly, gay and lesbian kinksters often preferred S&M over B&D. As reference, I cite “The Lesbian S/M Safety Manual” by Pat Califa (1988) and “Kiss of the Whip: Explorations in SM” by Jim Prezwalski (1994). Also, the more scholarly circles continue to use S&M as their preferred umbrella term, for example: “Sadomasochism: Powerful Pleasures”, Kleinplatz and Moser (2006). There is also evidence (see my citation earlier in this discussion) that the use of B&D or S&M was geographically different. (East coast and West coast.)

In summary, to imply that B&D took over from S&M is just plain wrong information. Not only is the information faulty, it is necessary to show the continuity of use of SM to account for the evolution of BDSM (B&D and S&M). I think we can, however, replace these two sentences with accurate, documented information to show the emergence of B&D as an alternate umbrella term. SailinStuff (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really feel a need to get into the larger section. I'm tired enough of this discussion as it is, and unlike you, I have no major disputes with most of the article as written. Sure, there are minor things that could be changed, and you probably have a point with what you've written above, but it's not something I really feel a need to comment on (beyond saying I'm not commenting, that is <g>).
As far as the initialism in the Etymology section, the same fundamental problem exists there as exists in the lead: it's uncited. What citations we have give no clear-cut etymology for it. We therefore cannot say that it's correct or incorrect as written. Despite your repeated claims that we all agree, I really don't think we do. If we did, this discussion wouldn't have gotten this drawn out. In the end, we need a source that says unambiguously how the initialism evolved—if we can't find one, then we must include all significantly believed etymologies without bias. One of the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and the etymology based on the sources we've seen so far is unverifiable. Also of relevance, which I just found, is WP:DICTIONARIES. – RobinHood70 talk 21:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC); Edit: 22:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm with you.  :) Will you wrap this up for us? Thanks. SailinStuff (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

a few years ago i remember seeing a website where guys want to be "slaves" of domintatrixes where they do whatever the woman (or man if it's reverse) wants. this included wonderful things like taking a dump in the slave's mouth, sticking multiple needles into his penis and testicles, and something else so disturbing i won't even type it here. this is what turns these supposedly sane human beings on. they label these activities "kink" or "BDSM". why isn't there any mention of this in the BDSM article?? 24.193.114.63 (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

BDSM activities are limited only by human imagination. We cannot list every possible activity that anyone could ever come up with. Instead, to the extent that specific examples are necessary, it's more appropriate to gear the article towards what is considered mainstream. The examples you cite, while perhaps not unheard of, are most certainly not mainstream. – RobinHood70 talk 17:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

18

Lol, got adult content. Jiawhein (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and I expect that the typical reader would expect to see relevant images on this article. One could certainly make an argument that we have too much focus on images of young conventionally attractive women subbing and that we are not adequately representing the more diverse community. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:49, 23 July 2013 (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)

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)

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:

Cross, P. A.; Matheson, K. (2006). "Understanding Sadomasochism". Journal of Homosexuality. 50 (2–3): 133–166. doi:10.1300/J082v50n02_07. PMID 16803762. [4]

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)

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)

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. -- 07:44, 11 March 2014 85.140.169.23

In the BDSM community, I've only ever seen bondage refer to the second definition. The first definition is covered by both Domination/submission and Master/slave, while the third is covered by Domination/submission. The English language certainly encompasses all three, but it would only lead to confusion to have the word "bondage" alone be used to refer to aspects of every initial in the initialism. – RobinHood70 talk 08:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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)
Flyer22 can you back up that claim? Most studies I've read show a significant percentage of females can achieve orgasm without any clitoral stimulation (i.e. solely through penetration of a penis or dildo). Regarding the BDSM article itself I agree that it 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 sexually abused as children, and/or suffer from some form of mental illness. 2604:2000:FFC0:1F9:4BE:10F9:EAC4:E40D (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BDSM/Archive_4&oldid=967850954"