Talk:BDSM in culture and media

Images
The images used in the article don't appear to have anything to do with the article's subject aside from being examples of BDSM. I would think examples of the media being discussed, assuming we could get some that qualify under fair use, would be better suited for this particular article. --OGoncho (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails
I'll try to dig out the reference, but I read a scholarly book on goths that explicitly stated that Nine Inch Nails was replete with BDSM references both in lyrics and visually. References to femdom/male sub BDSM at that. IsaacSapphire (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"a scholarly book on goths"? I'd love to read such a book! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.13.65 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Podcasts
The links for: The Room (A couple on BDSM and their relationship) and Submissive Ophelia podcast (Lifestyle/pro submissive woman married in a 24/7 relationship) are no longer working. The Room goes to a short directory while Submissive Ophelia podcast generates a page not found error.

I'd like to add the podcast Certified Sound. The show discusses kink and sexuality in general but regularly does shows on BDSM topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.116.4 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's one to add: The Masocast) "A podcast about sex, bdsm, swinging and all things kinky. Ok..most things kinky." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.5.13.65 (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Sadism and masochism in fiction
The relationship between this article and Sadism and masochism in fiction needs to be sorted out. Would it make sense to transfer the sections on Films, Television, Video Games? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Name Change?
I vote that we change the name of the article to "BDSM in popular culture". DanielDPeterson ( talk ) 01:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

SPOONCURVE-Hurt Me, I'm Yours
The band SPOONCURVE have a very BDSM related video/song on youtube.

Music section
I think the Music section is in real need of re-organisation. It seems quite a mess to me: lacking structure. Or is it just me? I don't know much about editing in wikipedia, but it just seems very hard to get overview from that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.159.178.109 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, removed reference to Devo's "Whip It". The reference links to the wiki page for the song, which specifically refutes the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.208.233 (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Criteria and thoughts on BDSM publications, given most are a) self-published and b) not academically reviewed
I have recently been experiencing "differences of opinion" with another Wikipedia user, upon adding the major new academic book on the history of the Dominatrix. The other user deleted the book, claiming they couldn't find the ISBN. (The ISBN was in fact easily searchable, through Amazon, Google, Nielsen, anywhere, so it would appear he didn't look properly.)

Reinstating the book, and reassuring him that the ISBN was correct and entirely searchable, he then deleted again unilaterally and without talk, due to it being apparently self-published.

Now this is an interesting point. As in general terms of course, Wikipedia doesn't like self-published books. However specific to BDSM, a huge percentage of the books are self-published due to the nature of the formerly taboo subject not attracting willing publishers. 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).

I put it to others and to more broad consensus, that BDSM seems to need its own exemption to general Wikipedia guidelines in terms of usually excluding self-published books, as in BDSM most books are self-published. Nor are they academically cited in some kind of academic journal for review. (There's no academic journal of BDSM, it's a shame!)

I would propose criteria for citing publications in broad terms on the BDSM pages (and related topic areas), is not criteria of whether a book is self-published (as this would knock out virtually all our beloved titles - Jay Wiseman's wonderful "SM101", or Janet Hardy's books on Topping and Bottoming - all self-published under Greenery Press which is Jay Wiseman and Janet Hardy (also using the name "Lady Green" - a Mistress identity adopted by Janet Hardy). Or the wonderful book "Screw the Roses, Give Me The Thorns" also self-published by the authors, who used the publishing name Mystic Rose Books. So self-publishing doesn't seem to be a very good criteria for excluding the major BDSM publications.

Another issue specific to BDSM publications is that authors often use a psuedonym or their Mistress name. Such as Lady Green who is of course Janet Hardy. Or Mistress Loralei. Many books on sexuality more generally are published under a psuedonym in an attempt to protect the author's identity. Such as Belle De Jour for Brooke Magnanti. A history stretching right back to the Victorian era of Pisanus Fraxi as Henry Spencer Ashbee. Or the psuedonymous "Walter".

So specific to BDSM, we need to rethink the critria. I would propose:

- Author well-regarded in fetish lifestyle circles, and/or academic circles.

- Book well-written and well-researched

- Book referenced with footnotes if presented in academic style

- Book mentioned in major fetish magazines and publications, where editorial has not been paid for but is a genuine endorsement

- Community / scene backing of author

and so on, etc.

Does anyone have anything to contribute on thoughts and consensus on criteria, regarding issues of BDSM books being typically self-published, sometimes under a psuedonym, which is contrary to typical Wikipedia preferences but is typical for the subject of BDSM...??

I think it's a very interesting topic to put to wider consensus in general terms. Seeing as the particular user is known on Wikipedia for deleting articles and additions in general across huge ranges of topics, without Talk contribution, and he may not be aware of the nuances of BDSM books being so typically self-published. I'm worried he shall next delete every book off the list on this basis.

Scholarlyfemme (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your criteria above are interesting but need to be shown:


 * Can you show the author is well regarded in academic circles? Nothing so far shows that.
 * Who judges it to be well written/researched. This is not a function of Wikipedia, but of academia.
 * Presented in academic style - a student research paper should meet that criteria but would not automatically be an academic book
 * Mentioned in major publications - you have yet to show any,
 * Community/scene backing - where? online forums and similar are not reliable.

You claim it is an academic book but have failed to show it being acknowledged as such by academics - without that, an anonymous, self published book, added by an editing with a name such as scholarlyfemme sounds like spamming the book. You have failed to show a reason it should be listed in the article.

I am not the only editor that has removed this publication from a BDSM article after you had added it. And WP:BRD puts the emphasis on you to bring it to the talk page and gain consensus BEFORE reinstating the disputed material. noq (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

____________________

Noq -

To the criteria I lay out. EVIDENCING THE AUTHOR IS WELL-REGARDED - The author and book have featured and endorsed in the world's largest Dominatrix magazine, DDI Magazine Volume #77. (The magazine has been published since 1997, and is the main industry magazine of the Dominatrix in the world, and its editor David Jackson well-respected within the fetish community. Refer http://www.ddimag.com/home.htm ) The editor makes the distinction of endorsing the book, without any commercial payment nor advertising, noting that in all his years in the fetish community, this is one of only two serious research projects ever committed on the subject, the other being the PhD thesis of Ilsa Strix (unpublished). He notes that the author sent in the book prior to publication and he wholeheartedly endorses the book as the major book on the subject of the Dominatrix. DDI Volume #77. It was unprecedented for him to feature a book in publication over 5 pages of the magazine. This major endorsement of the book, is all the more convincing due to David Jackson's standing in the BDSM community. He is known for his impartiality, length of time within the scene, and his integrity has not to my knowledge ever been challenged. You can read DDI's own criteria and ethics on their website: http://www.ddimag.com/ddistory5.htm

The book since published has found widespread endorsement by Dominatrices worldwide and crossing over into the lifestyle scene of BDSM through Dominatrices. On the Dominatrix site Max Fisch, by major Dominatrices around the world, who have posted their reviews, feedback and analysis of the book on their websites. While it is not appropriate to cite numerous Dominatrix websites on Wikipedia, they do help evidence the saturation of this book across USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and its acceptance and endorsement by practioners of BDSM.

I would emphasize Noq that there is no academic publication for review of books on BDSM. None of the books featured on the BDSM Media and Culture page would meet the criteria of having been reviewed in an academic journal. The major books on BDSM buzz around the community and 'scene' (as it is referred to), find popular endorsement and become well-regarded.

The additional strength of this book is the author is also an academic. The evidence for this? The book itself cites the author has an MA degree in Comparative Art and Archaeology from UCL, works as an historian, and is undertaking further study towards a doctorate. While it's conceivable she could be making up her academic credentials, it would seem unlikely as her Acknowledgements page does thank academics such as David Wengrow and Stephanie Dalley by personal name from UCL and Oxford University and cite correspondence with them. Furthermore the author was granted rare access to British Library 'Rare Books', by special permission, to rare books not available to the general public due to their fragility

That the book is written by an academic is helpful, though not necessary, as most of the books on the topic of BDSM are not by academics. The advantage is that it is footnoted thorughout, and presents primary evidence, including rare flagellation prints and other material with permissions from the British Museum, British Library, Kinsey Institute and Library of Congress. This is not necessary for the book's inclusion on the BDSM page, but further demonstrates what a useful resource it is to have referenced on the BDSM page, as it presents so much primary material as a resource.

The book has been agreed by other Wikipedia users on other pages to be kept, sometimes with Talk.

I have attempted to think through critically what criteria we are using for selecting out the important books on the topic. The criteria has always been somewhat common-sense critical intelligence. However I've attempted to make the implicit criteria explicit.

- Author well-regarded in fetish lifestyle circles, and/or academic circles.

- Book well-written and well-researched

- Book referenced with footnotes if presented in academic style

- Book mentioned in major fetish magazines and publications, where editorial has not been paid for but is a genuine endorsement

- Community / scene backing of author

As discussed above, most books on BDSM are self-published due to the 'taboo' nature of BDSM struggling to find mainstream publishers historically, and the stigma which may attach to any individual author publishing on the topic being 'outed' as being involved personally in BDSM.

I hope my comments and thoughts may be helpful more generally in the future for a range of other books, and issues on BDSM, that may come up.

As the book already exists (with talk and consensus) on pages of the Dominatrix and BDSM, I believe it correct to restore the book, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

No-one else other than Noq - who doesn't appear to be an expert or specialist or regular contributor to BDSM and sexuality pages - appears to have any issue. However I am more than happy to enter into talk if anyone does want to discuss the individual publication or perhaps even more interesting and consequential - the broader issues of BDSM books. (The bigger picture issues are much more interesting to me and relevant to the future of this page, than the one publication being discussed, and will have implications for the future of this page and others on BDSM.)

Scholarlyfemme (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just repeating your first post does nothing to get consensus - there is none here despite your reverting again against WP:BRD. As for Dominatrix I see no indication at Talk:Dominatrix that your edits had been discussed to gain consensus and at Talk:BDSM there is just someone explaining why they reverted your edits.  Again, not WP:consensus.  Your having successfully managed to insert the book in other pages does nothing to show it should be here.  The DDIMAG ref could be the start of that but I would like someone else who has access to that publication to confirm what you claim.  I have posted a request for opinion on the project talk page to hopefully attract some more knowledgeable editors.noq (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Noq - I am wholeheartedly for that. (That is, I am all for posting request for opinion on project talk page to attract more knowledgeable editors in the field of BDSM / the subject of the Dominatrix.) That would be immmensely helpful.

I note you have still not apologized for reverting over not being able to find the ISBN number, or responded to my concerns about your "shifting goalposts", and prior non-contribution to "Talk" while making deletions, which is not keeping with Wikipedia directives. I think several fresh and third party perspectives would be useful.

If you go back through my own contributions over the years, you will see I have regularly updated books and publications on the Dominatrix, adding Danielle Lindemann's sociological study, Wilson's article on Dominatrix's choice of names, etc. And I intend to continue to update all major and important publications on these topics. Scholarlyfemme (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite your attempts to paint me as the villain here, my edit summaries while not always giving an essay on all the reasons each time I am not making misleading claims of having gained a consensus on those summaries like you have. And you have still failed to follow WP:BRD - your change should wait until consensus - that guideline requires you to go to talk page not me. Your descriptions of the book as scholarly without any justification and your user name makes it seem reasonable to think you are trying to use Wikipedia to push the recently published book. noq (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Noq - Not only are you mistaken, but you are not following Wikipedia principles of 'assume good faith'. I don't think you're a villain. I don't say you're acting without good faith. I'm sure you mean well, as do I.

However when you delete other people's material added, without talk, citing one reason, then when they respond, delete again for another reason, you will of course find that this creates hostility, and/or stubborness. People either give up and leave Wikipedia feeling hurt that their additions are deleted unilaterally and dismissively. Or, if sufficiently confident on their topic, they dig their heels in, and hold their ground, calling the other person to justify deletions in "Talk", and seeking other people's independent views. (The alternative I would propose is nice friendly chat and exchange of ideas, and viewpoints, healthy debate, concessions where appropriate, etc, which I far prefer.) You seemed to be unaware that the ramifications of your criteria for deleting a book on the BDSM page solely for the reason of it being self-published, would mean virtually every single book on the topic of BDSM would also be at risk of deletion or indeed deleted along with it for consistency. This would have major ramifications for the whole topic of BDSM, and could have the consequence of needing to remove virtually every single recommended book on BDSM from the list. Jay Wiseman's SM101 (self-published), Philip Miller & Molly Devon's "Screw the Roses, Give Me The Thorns" (self-published) etc, etc - none are mainstream printed nor to my knowledge academically reviewed. But they're all great books, well-regarded the by BDSM scene and practitioners, and useful to any scholar of the subject.

I appreciate that in general Wikipedia doesn't like self-published books for good reason. However I hope you can also understand when I've gone on to explain it, why so many BDSM books are self-published, and it relates to the 'taboo' nature of the topic historically which mainstream publishers were unwilling to take on. So it creates I would agree with you some contention for deciding which books should or shouldn't be on the list, and that to me is a very interesting topic.

So your deletion reasoning is of concern to me - far beyond this one book. My agenda is to try and ensure the major books on the subject of BDSM which are useful to scholars are listed, and that important new books, good books, find their way on the list. This is particularly the case when there are very few books on the topic, and even fewer with historical original sources reproduced which are not found elsewhere. If you check back on my long-term history on Wikipedia, you'll see I've been adding new important publications when they come out and find their way within my field of vision, for some years. I've just today received Julie Peakman's new book from Amazon, just recently published, and I intend to add that too, just as I have Nomis's. I've added many other books and journal articles in the past if you both referring back into my history on Wikipedia.

I look forward to someone independent weighing in, who has some knowledge of BDSM and the nuances of titles not being published mainstream (in most cases). Nor are any of these books being academically reviewed, typically. They make their way only into fetish magazines and through the fetish scene by word-of-mouth and forum chat. I've tried to put forward in general terms what may be more helpful criteria applied to BDSM books.

And I'm sure you can appreciate when you read through my suggestions, the 'BIGGER PICTURE' issue in respect of BDSM books and their criteria, and how that may affect the BDSM pages in much broader terms. Scholarlyfemme (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not remove it solely because it was self published - although that was part of reasoning - you are focussing on that not me. Please do not keep adding any new book that is published on the subject as that would not be appropriate - Wikipedia is not a directory and there should be a good reason for it to be included as was explained to you by another editor on another page - which is why I have not repeated that here - it is almost always inappropriate to add a book just because it has been published. I have also pointed out to you on several occasions that WP:BRD means the onus is on you to gain consensus when things that you have added are reverted by other editors - I always provide edit summaries that relate to at least some of the reasons that the entry is removed, you however seem to leave misleading edit summaries claiming a consensus exists when it clearly does not. The bigger picture seems to me to be an attempt to WP:SOAPBOX on the issue. For the book to be listed, just being published is not enough - you have acknowledged that but have claimed that this should be an exception because it is hard to find things to justify it and this is not good enough. There are academics that make studies of various aspects related to sex and sexuality so you cannot just say nothing exists in academia and then claim this book to be academic. There is no evidence of the book meeting your own criteria other than a single review - and as I have already explained I have issues with some of your criteria. The initial edits on a subject that inevitably attracts vandalism could easily be taken as a vandal edit and subsequent ones seemed to be pushing the book. The changes to my edit summaries were made to clarify why I reverted. I have a watchlist of currently of 15,000 pages just keeping on top of that takes a lot of time so I am sorry if I do not always have the time to write essays to people that do seem to be trying to promote a book. noq (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Noq. I have not added "any new book that is published". I have historically always added important books and journal articles which are rigorous. I have consistently done so over several years. If you do some checking, you'll find the Nomis book and the Lindemann book are the only books in existence on the topic of the Dominatrix. (Other than erotica) I know you may find this surprising, but it if you look into it further, you'll find this is accurately the case. Both books are carefully researched and footnoted. I've also added Brame and Brame's book 'Different Loving' to the BDSM page, which is also a very important seminal work on BDSM. Ilsa Strix's book if and when it comes out, will also be seminal, and students already cite her PhD thesis. I look forward to review and contribution of others who understand the relevant topic area of BDSM. The paucity of material on the sub-topics, and the unusual publishing history, and the significance of major analyses becoming available after years of there being nothing on the topic. Scholarlyfemme (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

BDSM Culture webpage
Dear editor, I would like to recommend my webpage as database about BDSM related mainstream media: http://www.bdsmculture.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.109.146 (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No Games?
Are there no games to add to this list? I find that surprising... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.28.57 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Find them
 * Source them
 * Add them


 * Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on BDSM in culture and media. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220022334/http://www.mini.ca/en/More_MINI/MINIfun/DominateWinter/default.aspx to http://www.mini.ca/en/More_MINI/MINIfun/DominateWinter/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928014208/http://www.graydancer.com/ropeweekly/ to http://www.graydancer.com/ropeweekly/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080220132627/http://subophelia.podomatic.com/ to http://subophelia.podomatic.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100808071117/http://dungeonplace.com/hole/podcasts/ to http://dungeonplace.com/hole/podcasts/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Literature image
The image used looks more like a judicial or forced punishment flogging of a naked woman. Maybe it belongs in such an article but it's not really representative of BDSM. Biofase flame | stalk 13:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)