Talk:Dungeon (BDSM)

Pictures does not show the dungeon

The pictures are too centered around the wimmen, and does not show the dungeon. Please change? user:Idiotbastard 11:09, 8 October 2006 user:Idiotbastard

I agree, it shows few play toys or equipment. I think it looks more like an excuse to use vanity images. We need to have some people contribute picutures of their home dungeon to put here in place of these poor images. I think the images would be great as part of a different article, but they illustrate the topic "dungeon" poorly, IMO. Atom 23:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion on Pornographic Images

NOTE: The comments of people here were added to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, not this discussion page. I copied them over for future reference. Jonemerson 04:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Dungeon (BDSM) seems to have inappropriate images, but I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on pornographic images. Nor do I know the proper approach to having the images evaluated for appropriateness. Can someone please take a look? Thanks! Jonemerson 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy prohibiting it, so Wikipedians like to put porn everywhere they can. They have far worse things than this.--AltUser 12:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, an admin might want to take a look at the above user's contributions, just for interest's sake. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind pornography (although I think sadism (deriving pleasure from the suffering of others) is the worst possible trait/paraphilia/disorder that someone can have), but this picture is racier/more offensive than it has to be. A topless woman is not necessary for an image on the subject of BDSM dungeons and the gag and diaper are really over the top. As an example, the operating theatre could have a picture of a gunshot victim with blood and tissue all over the place, but such a picture is not necessary for the subject. I think that a picture of a dungeon with various equipment would best, but a picture of a clothed person would be an improvement. -- Kjkolb 17:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a picture of a bound person doesn't need to show any nudity either. It could be from behind; it could be in a position with naughty bits concealed; whatever. By the way, that gal isn't "suffering"; she's restrained, but isn't being harmed or hurt in any way. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Hogtie bondage. As a general principle, I believe that whatever is necessary in order to properly illustrate a topic should be used without restriction. However, beyond that, images that are likely to avoid offense should be strongly avoided and/or alternatives sought. — Matt Crypto 17:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the images in the article are bothering you, you can be bold, and remove one. The article does not need two images to illustrate the subject. I would suggest removing the image with the gag on, as this one seems to be more offensive than the one without. Th ε Halo ^Θ 17:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<rhetorical question>Now, why exactly was someone who would easily be offended by images like that looking at Dungeon (BDSM)?</rhetorical question> - Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone has a moral opposition to pornography doesn't mean they're not curious about what's going on in the world. I could easily see someone clicking on the BDSM link from "Dungeon (disambiguation)" just to see what BDSM is. But the reason I brought this article to people's attention is because I think the pictures are pornography, which I happen to enjoy on other places of the Internet, but which I don't think belongs on Wikipedia. Jonemerson 23:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at these: WP:NOT, Wikipedia:Profanity, WP:PORN, as they are all relevent to what you are talking about. As I said, I think having at least one of those pictures in the article is acceptable, as it illustrates the subject matter. Th ε Halo ^Θ 23:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Article on Dungeon (BDSM), I have removed the second image. I have also removed the name of the submissive from the article as entirely extraneous. Thanks, Banyan Tree 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite interessting to see how many people use a word like pornography without even taking care how it is defined. The cultural differences between the US and Europe are sometimes amazing. Btw. sadism and BDSM are two different pair of shoes. --Nemissimo II 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus from Image WP:AN Discussions

The consensus from the WP:AN discussions seemed to be that it would be great to have pictures of a dungeon without a model. If anyone could upload pictures of their dungeon, please do!! Jonemerson 04:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you guys go look on commons? If I remember there are pictures of dungeons without models there. pschemp | talk 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]