Talk:Bondage (BDSM)

TV shows: ReBoot reference
As a person who watched that series from its premiere to its completion, I can tell you that Megabyte and Hexadecimal were siblings (brother and sister respectively), the two halves of a more powerful virus. As such Megabyte was suave, calculating and cultured (the brains) while the unpredictable and unstable Hexademical personified chaos (the brawn). The siblings shared a strong rivalry and deep-rooted hatred for each other, and if Megabyte captured Hexadecimal it was usually to make use of the considerable power at her disposal. Comparisions to bondage are likely in the restraints used to ensure Hexadecimal didn't unleash her rage on her brother or his forces at a crucial moment (usually when the heroes arrived to save the day), and not for anything incestual. In short: They really shouldn't be here for the reasons given above, so could we please remove that reference? -- 74.12.132.119 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of ReBoot too, and I can understand what you mean. I changed it, although I'm a beginner at Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.201.193 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics
"Studies in the U.S. have shown that about a half of all men find the idea of bondage to be erotic; many women do as well." - any actual stats for women? Crab —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese
Is anyone here kinky and speaks Japanese, who could confirm or correct the Japanese bondage entries here, and perhaps even add some Unicode for their original Japanese names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.180 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 3 January 2003 (UTC)

Links
Added http://www.seriousbondage.com/ - this is a good non-commercial site. Please don't remove it. Dlloyd 09:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Serious bondage might be a good link, but not here, rather more appropriately placed on the BDSM page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.134.28 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Added http://www.bondage10.com/ - this is a best website of bondage in spanish, with fantastic information in the section "Diario personal", for example. Bondage10 is a serious and correct website. Please don't remove it this link, and add to the original article of bondage in English Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorySPA (talk • contribs) 14:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * it is not customary to have links to non-English sites, according to WP:EL. Conceivably this might be an exception due to the quality of content. DGG (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this relevant?
I've noticed this recent addition.

".... The basic style depends on the type of fantasy being played out, here a few examples: Rape Fantasy: The top fictitiously abducts the consenting bottom and has complete control to do what he/she pleases. Domination/Slavery: A training session occurs in which rewards for obediance and punishment for defiance are given. Humilation is usually involved. Predicament Bondage: The bottom is given a choice between two tortures. For example, caning on the rear or flogging on the chest. If the bottom cannot stand one any longer, the top will start the other. This can also be done mechanically, like having a bottom squat and rigging a crotch rope to tighten if they attempt to stand. ...."

To me it doesn't seem relevent as they describe other BSDM activites not neccisarily related to Bondage as an activity. It seems to me that someone has simply added thier own fantasies to the existing entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.226.118.91 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 29 April 2005 (UTC)


 * You are entirely correct, IMHO, this paragraph does not belong under bondage, and perhaps not under BDSM either. This is a dictionary to consult for information, not to go into specific scenarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.134.28 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm tempted to call lack of NPOV of this article, mostly because in my experiences, bondage is not necessarily sexual. It easily can be, and is a fairly intimate act, like sex, so there is a strong sexual connotation in some cases, but it easily does not have to be sexual.


 * I've renamed the article, from "sexual bondage" to "bondage (BDSM)" to reflect this. Does that help? -- The Anome 08:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * That it does, thanks. Sdr 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)


 * It's an improvement but this article has nothing to do with SM so I think the title may be misleading. It's only about "Bondage" so I think that's what it should be called. Kevin Reems (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bondage isn't always identified as BDSM especially in case of being used on its own. I guess, best name for article would be Bondage (restraining), to differ it from other meaning of word. "Bondage(BDSM)" gives impression to readers that those are synonyms. There is notion that in BDSM, bondage is used in meaning of "servitude" too 85.140.169.23 (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

History
Bondage must be older than this article claims. see works by Jacques-André Boiffard from the 1930s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.125.113 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit odd that those Ann Rice books are named as "early examples" of bondage; they're not very old at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.30.47 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A serious history of bondage requires in-depth presentation of some people who are surprisingly absent from the article. Three which readily come to mind:
 * Irving Klaw
 * John Willie (and the entire Sweet Gwendolyne series of stories)
 * Eric Stanton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.26.65.41 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Effie Elisa Ross" is not a homo-erotic BDSM poet, her name was placed on this page originally as a prank. However, I have attempted to remove it many times, and my edit is ignored and the page is reverted back, despite the fact that I had just legitimately fixed a malicious edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.7.209 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

erm, there are some really anchient japanese pics but as i couldnt find them again i havent added them here :(, and not sure about the context a they may have not been consensual and therefor just rape (i think bdsm implies consensual fun, for me anyway) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.22.100 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If that was japanese rope bondage\shibari, then it's very ancient art, actually somewhat linked to martial, artistic and anatomy arts. European bondage supposedly was influenced by it. Shibari is very good example of tasteful, non-sexual (but obviously erotic) usage of physical restraints, which proves statement in beginning of article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.144.252 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on psychological research?
I came to this article out of interest. I read a lot about "practicalities", like a how-to, but little on more serious history, or psychological reasearch. What motivates people (need for dominance, passive agression)? I think this article needs a more serious approach and less of the how-to quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.141.127 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fusion Bondage
The page Fusion Bondage was created, but there seems not to be much info on it. A Google search only returns 329 instances of the term. I propose that this subject might better exist as a part of the main Bondage article. Vslashg (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the comment above... Fusion Bondage like Shibari is its own artistic branch of rope bondage. The link to Bondage (BDSM) provides clarity for readers looking for more information on the general subject of Bondage. However, that said, Bondage (BDSM) is written like a clinical treatise on the subject --- not an indebt objective artistic and sensual evolution of its elements. It lumps rope bondage into a general "catch all", a fact that limits objective evaluation of Fusion Bondage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.59.230 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One issue is whether "Fusion Bondage" is notable enough to warrant a separate article, or whether it only really merits a brief mention in a more general article (such as this one). vslashg is presumably arguing the latter based on Google search hits, and the argument seems fair enough to me. Remember, Wikipedia is not a place to promote new ideas that haven't really attained any independent notability yet. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems a little nonsensical to me to require that Fusion Bondage be a chapter in the Bondage (BDSM) article, but have no reference at all to it in the Rope Bondage article, since it fits in both categories. M.S.K. 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

John Mellencamp song
I removed this paragraph
 * The popular song, "Hurts So Good", by John Mellencamp featured lyrics saying, "Come on baby make it hurt so good. Sometimes love don't feel like it should, so make it hurt so good."

since it seems to refer to S/M rather than bondage as such. Pretzelpaws 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
I think that one picture should be of a man in bondage, especially because the article emphasises that many men fantasise about being tied up during sex. I don't have any - anyone who can help out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.254 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have one but I do not know how to put it on there. Starcomet 21:58 September 24, 2006 (UCT)
 * I agree, I found a free image of a man on Commons and added it to the article. Johntex\talk 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Mess
Most of the songs, facts etc refer to BDSM not to bondage. Most facts related to BDSM are true for bondage too. This doesn't mean it also has to be the other way around as well. Therefore I believe only facts distiguishing bondage should be statet here... everything else should be put under BDSM. Subsidiarity --84.152.231.17 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is true. I actually put many of the music ref's here, and then copied to BDSM.  When I get a chance, or others do, your idea of trimming these to more bondage specific music links would be great. Atom 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate Article Required?
I think we need somebody in the know to write another separate article dealing with 'loving' bondage, rather than bondage used within Dom/Sadomasochism. There's a huge gulf between strapping a willing victim up for a good lashing, and tying your beloved up in silk to give her something to pull against and stop her wiggling out of the room while you are pleasuring her. My wife and me have played this way over the years, but we need someone like Taxwoman to write a proper page :-) 160.84.253.241 09:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Me again. In fact, after reading the 'Couples and Bondage' paragraph, and the 'BDSM' page, it strikes me the vast majority of people that play with bondage are probably in no way connected to BDSM at all, but are otherwise - "vanilla" couples who sometimes use mild forms of bondage as part of normal sex play as a 'sensation intensifier'.  Why has this 'Bondage' page been hijacked by the BDSM community, when (I imagine) most bondage that will happen in the world tonight has absolutely nothing to do with Domination, Sadism, or Masochism?. 160.84.253.241 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are learning more about our sub-culture. Actually BDSM has grown over the years to basically be a term that is used to cover the whole spectrum of what some would call "kinky" activity. Not all, in fact most BDSM'ers are not at the end of the spectrum, what one might call "heavy players". Many are couples whose children are older, or out of the house who are exploring their sexuality again, and try out a little light bondage or D/s play.

In response to your added comment, the bondage page is pretty accurate according to my view. I'm not sure what you mean that it has been hijacked by the BDSM community. Light bondage and spanking is part of the BDSM spectrum.

BTW, please don't use silk to tie up your sweatheart, as silk can be very hard to untie in an emergency. Atom 12:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Sorry for using the word 'hijacked'...it's the wrong word.  I suppose there are a million different views about where the border is between 'bondage within vanilla', and BDSM.


 * Personally I don't tie my beloved up to dominate her, but because she looks nice like that, and she finds working against the ties feels good when she can feel a mattress-ripper coming on :-). We have no interest at all in the 'DSM' part of 'BDSM', so maybe we just need to change our definition of 'vanilla' to include light bondage (I think that most 'vanilla' couples are a lot more adventurous than people think anyway, they just keep it between the two of them behind the closed bedroom door).


 * I won't be a pest by calling a vote or anything, I just want to canvass opinion.''' Am I the only one who thinks that bondage as used within relationships by more adventurous 'vanilla' couples, and bondage as used in its own right as part of BDSM culture are such different things that they merit two separate (but cross-referred) articles ???
 * 160.84.253.241 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have great sympathy with our anonymous friend, and am flattered that he thinks that I am the one to write a proper page. The trouble is that really, it's a multi-faceted continuum, not a simple either/or. Would the cabal who run Wikipedia really stand for having lots of separate articles called "Light bondage in vanilla sex", "Bondage without domination", "Stringent bondage without SM"? They'd soon be deleted or merged.--Taxwoman 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks to our truly beautiful friend (we've seen the photos!). I see what you mean.  There seems to be a 'raincoat brigade' who try to slant all 'sexuality' articles to extremes and personal agendas at the expense of the 'centre' (??). For example have you seen the meagre page for 'Vanilla Sex'?...'Er and Me consider ourselves 'Vanilla', but if our sex life was as mind-numbingly dull as described there, we would have jumped off Beachy Head together long before now :-)  (e.g. see my wife's re-write of the article on 'Orgasm Control'). Many vanilla couples explore other things without ever becoming part of the relevant sub-culture, so in addition to vanilla bondage, we have over time also had a vanilla foursome without becoming swingers, and we must keep Duracell in profit with our vanilla use of various things that go buzz in the night, whilst still remaining 'vanilla'.  I still feel that the article should simply be called 'Bondage (Sexual)' which starts with plain Bondage, but then derects you onwards to BDSM if you want to delve deeper, but I'll go with the flow.  Perhaps we will attempt a re-write of the 'Couples and Bondage' section, which again seems very meagre given the percentage of the population that are probably 'at it'.  (BTW I'm not being anonymous for any sinister reason, but my real user name is my actual name :-) L&BWs 160.84.253.241 08:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the things that bothers me about this page is the first two photos. They depict bondage portrayed in pornography. So as I thought about it, it dawned on me that there is a great gulf between bondage done for pleasure and bondage that is portrayed in pornography. I personally like both, but there is a difference and this article does not distinguish the two. It also seems like this is what the "vanilla" vs more "extreme" group might be misinterpreting. I would like the two photos of the models removed. And, if anyone is interested, maybe something can be done to clarify the intent of the information in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephharper911 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about cabals, but i do know that people around here get pretty impatient about articles without real sourcing. the problem with articles on this subject is getting good references to published material. If you want a wider range of articles, if you want a wider range of content, if you want a clearer distinction between different styles, start by getting sources. It's hard to document attitudes--what different people call routine sex -- or pornography -- varies in all sorts of directions. Don't try to reorient, don't try to subtract--try to add. It is much better having as small number of substantial articles than a larger number of poorly documented variations--people will always be trying to merge them. it doesn't matter what we call an article, what matters is the information. Get information, get literary and film examples, get sources    As for illustrations, though WP isn't censored of course :), there is a resistance to using unnecessarily dramatic photographs. Bored-looking models seem more acceptable--and remember we can only use free content--it is not that easy finding ones that are of high quality and otherwise suitable.  We can also use original drawings, if they are donated under a free license. If you know of a good image that shows things differently, make certain about the copyright, and add it.  I'd advise you as for any other topic--if you have a different  perspective, add it. It is difficult in this area to keep even the existing content--we've lost quite a number of articles. I can't say it enough times--the biggest contribution anyone can make to this topic is additional unquestionably reliable sources. (and need I mention that what you personally think or do is what we call Original Research, and this isn't the right wiki for it.)  DGG (talk)

tousin
Could someone comment on the importance of the 3 books by Steven Toushin, just added to the article? DGG (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidence
For details compare BDSM.--Nemissimo (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Folsom St. picture
I dont think its a suitable picture, because it doe not provide a clear illustration of the subject. its a general science from the fair, which could probably used to illustate an article on the fair. some bondage demos seem to be going on, but at WP resolution they are not distinct enough to be informative. I havent the least objection to individual pictures, if they are better than this in their encyclopedic quality. Unless someone can counter this argument, I'm going to remove the picture. DGG (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Same here...no objection to the pictures, but they are not representative. We need a few pictures of (for want of a better word) 'normal' bondage, as practiced by couples etc.  Only a small minority of people who actually play 'tie me up games' are actually visible members of the bondage 'scene'.  I'm afraid me and my partner have a few too many miles on the clock to upload any of ours, but surely somebody a bit more photogenic could donate some with face turned away / pixellated if necessary???  Perhaps someone a bit artistic could 'trace' a few ink drawings over some of their photos?.  We need views of the most common scenarios i.e. Woman spreadeagled / 'Y'-shaped on bed receiving oral: woman trussed with man holding vibrator: man with arms cuffed to bed with wife role-playing 'Miss BossyBoots' etc, which is the sort of thing that most people in the real world actually get up to. Strapping Lass (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I cropped the image to make the bondage more evident. The image is important and relevant to the section it appears in: "BDSM subcultures". -Neitherday (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bondage in cats
I don't believe that cat mating behaviour has anything to do with bondage in BDSM. The male cat's motive has nothing to do with the fetishism of bondage and is only motivated by his desire to prevent the female cat from leaving during mating. The act is more in line with rape than it is with BDSM. Neitherday (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * certainly--I'm removing the section-- i doubt it has to do with rape either, just maintaining the mating position, as do all species in various ways. This particular position is the way kittens are held, so I assume it is felt as appropriate affection either consciously or as a reflex. . Anyway, this isnt the place for it-- or the place to discuss it. DGG (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to suggest it was rape, just that rape would be a better comparison than BDSM bondage in terms of human behaviour. Anyway, thank you for removing the section :) Neitherday (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I adjust and append it below.

It is sad that any mention of any possibility of any connection at all between anything related to BSDM and anything in nature shall have no place in the encyclopedia.Jidanni (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bondage in nature?
Bondage might possibly have connections to phenomena observed in nature, e.g., cat mating: The male grabs the female by the scruff. This is done to immobilize her while he mounts and to prevent her from running away as the mating process takes place. Cognate areas of the brain being involved or not will have to await a CAT Scan ☺.

The problem with your reference is that the linked article only talks about the behaviour, but never links it to BDSM bondage in humans. For this text to be included, you would need a reliable source that specifically makes the connection between feline mating behaviour and human BDSM bondage. Remember that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources]". -Neitherday (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mention that it is an open question awaiting an answer from qualified researchers. Jidanni (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that it's a question at all. Unless you can get some support from a reliable source, it does not belong in the article. DGG (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just get rid of it. This is one of the few remaining Sexology Wikis that doesn't look as though it was written by dirty schoolboys.  Try and keep it informative.  Shift the cat rubbish to a page dealing with animal sexuality. Strapping Lass (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture
I just realised the picture I added, that I have taken myself, is the only one on the entire page displaying female toplessness. This kind of makes it stand out, but I figure it's OK anyway, as the whole article is about a sexual phenomenon. J I P | Talk 20:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not any more, apparently the classical artists had no problem painting pictures of topless women in bondage. My picture still remains the only photograph displaying female toplessness though. J I P  | Talk 20:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Too many photos
You guys are forgetting this is an encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.79.69 (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww, you're just trying to rob us of a nice excuse to look at tied-up women. =) J I P  | Talk 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to user JIP...Wikipedia is not a fetish website... (in all accounts an article should be able to stand alone without images, images only enhance the nature of an article, a well written article could (and IMHO should be able to) stand alone without imagery)... I am now, condensing the images of the photo's used on this article... removing them to this discussion page, where editors can DISCUSS the reinclusion of the images... (see Below)

My criteria for removal: 165.138.95.59 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 If the section has more than one of the same type of photo for the discription, or similar description as another in the same article section, I remove the photo
 * 2 I did not remove any photos from the lede section
 * 3 If the photo or photos are attached with a tag, or bulletin or other editors form of notation questioning their inclusion.
 * 4 If the photo is found to be copyrighted and not included in either GFL or on Wikipedia Commons, or Public Liscensing
 * 5 If the photo is inconsitent with the section in which it was placed and/or was intended for another section, or a section that is no more...
 * 6 If the photo shows genetalia, without a notable reason for displaying genetalia... (this includes the upper portion of a female's anatomy)
 * 7 If the photo attaches irrelevent data to the article's overall subject matter

A.) This portion removed as per reason 3 above

B.) This photo removed as per #'s 1 and 7 (two pictures of cuff's, one is full body, remain in the article... IMO (and maybe you disagree, but...) self-cutting is an unneccessary addition to a section on cuff usage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.138.95.59 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the article based on the German article
The German article de:Bondage seems to be much more extensive and detailed than this article. I'm planning on expanding this article according to it, but it requires much work, because of two things:
 * 1) This article is already extensive and detailed. It requires attention to spot out which parts need to be added and which are already there. The structures of the English and German articles as quite different.
 * 2) German is only my fourth best known language, after my native Finnish, English, and Swedish.  J I P  &#124; Talk 19:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bondage statistics
I recently added this, based on the German article de:Bondage:
 * In 1995, psychologists Kurt Ernulf and Sune Innala from Sweden published an analysis based on answers from members of the bondage-oriented Usenet group alt.sex.bondage. Most of the answers (76%) were from men. In 71% of the answers the active (restraining) role in bondage was played by heterosexual men, in 11% by heterosexual women and in 12% by homosexual men. 29% of the heterosexual men, 89% of the heterosexual women and 88% of the homosexual men played the passive (restrained) role.

How come 12% of the homosexual men were in the active role and 88% of the homosexual men were in the passive role? A homosexual man's partner is also a homosexual man. Therefore shouldn't the division between active and passive roles among homosexual men be exactly 50%-50%? Same goes for lesbian women as well, even though it isn't mentioned. But this comes straight from the German article, and I haven't read the original source, much less the answers it was based on. J I P &#124; Talk 19:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to remove (BDSM) from the title
While some may view bondage as part of their BDSM, it is inherently not a part of BDSM. A sad misconception is that bondage and BDSM mean the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.82.155 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well what would you suggest instead? Bondage by itself won't do, it is widely used with no connection of tying anyone up at all. This article was previously located at Bondage (sexual) but it was later moved back to Bondage (BDSM). I for one think the current title is fine. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes bondage itself won't do, but there are much more people who do bondage as bondage without incorporating sadomasochism. One form of such bondage could be done with a tie or other household items. Besides, pure bondage, as stated in this article, can be done for aesthetic purposes as well. Perhaps "Interpersonal Bondage" as opposed to "Self-bondage"?

Because of the very widely-spread misconception that bondage=BDSM, the distinction should be made at title-level. One can do bondage without sadomasochism, but the term BDSM inherently includes bondage, even if the devious act wouldn't necessarily include it.

Other title suggestions would be "Bondage (sexual)", "Bondage (sex play)" and for distinction, "Bondage (aesthethic)" or "Aesthethic bondage". Whatever the new title, it is certainly more appropriate than Bondage (BDSM). A separate subpage of "BDSM Bondage" would make the distinction. 88.112.82.155 (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I could go with "Bondage (sexual)". I don't think "Bondage (aesthetic)" is a good idea, because this article is also about bondage as a medium for sex and/or BDSM, not only for its own sake. Also, "Interpersonal bondage" is an even worse idea, because (1) this article covers self-bondage too, and (2) it doesn't convey any idea that this is about tying people up for pleasure (be it either visual or sexual), not simply because you have to (as, for example, in law enforcement). J I P  &#124; Talk 18:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. The article states that bondage is also performed for non-sexual reasons (reflected in the relatively-recent move from the target title).  Mini  apolis  17:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bondage (BDSM) → Bondage (sexual) – As explained in the above section, bondage (in terms of tying people up for pleasure) doesn't necessarily involve BDSM. Bondage can be done for purely visual, tactile and aesthetic purpose, without any connection to sexual intercourse or domination/submission. J I P &#124; Talk 18:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)  J I P  &#124; Talk 18:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, logical, rational, sensible proposal. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as the BD in BDSM is "bondage and discipline", not just bondage in general. Tying someone down and tickling them with a feather is bondage (sexual) but not bondage (BDSM), presumably? K7L (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per article, reasons go beyond just sexual – "sexual, aesthetic, and/or psychological pleasure". The article was moved here less than a year ago for that reason, and moving it back is pointless. Apteva (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But if it's established that bondage for pleasure is neither inherently BDSM or inherently sexual, what title would you suggest then? J I P  &#124; Talk 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the B in BDSM is "bondage". This article clarifies: "Sexuality and erotica are an important aspect in bondage, but are often not the end in itself. Aesthetics also plays an important role in bondage."  BDSM also clarifies that among the practices is "restraint" (in the lede), and that "Bondage and Discipline are two aspects" (section 2.1) thus they are distinct and not necessarily requiring each other or any other aspect.  Claiming that "bondage doesn't necessary involve BDSM" is a fallacy -- bondage doesn't necessarily involve D, S or M, but it is inherently part of the overall BDSM term.  I doubt that any suitable single term exists to adequately replace "BDSM" in the title of this article, especially "sexual" because section 2 gives at least three cited non-sexual examples and section 9 gives a cited spiritual example.  The requestor's statement even states "Bondage can be done for purely visual, tactile and aesthetic purpose, without any connection to sexual intercourse...", so the "sexual" nomination does not make sense.  HalJor (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * BDSM = "bondage and discipline", "dominance and submission", "sadism and masochism". They operate in pairs, not alone. K7L (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pictures
Can anybody say: holy crap too many pictures ya pervs.? Knock it down to two or three. You know, like the rest of the entirety of Wikipedia. RogrMexico (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the German article. There are 27 pictures there but only 17 here. Keep in mind I counted every picture, whether depicting bound women, bound men, or simply bondage instruments alone. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Kinks
Was there a direct topic on kinks. Or the types of kinks. Cornstalks (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a short article on kink (sexuality). - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge Metal bondage here
I have tagged Metal bondage to be merged here. It has only a single dubious source and has hardly any more content than the relevant section here. I would propose that the article contents are copied over here leaving an appropriate redirect behind.  Velella  Velella Talk 12:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Images and their sources
Many of the photos on this page are amateur, and either have no metadata that tells where the image came from or have metadata confirming that the image subject and sharer are not the same person. As someone uncomfortable with the idea of people's images being uploaded to the internet without their consent, particularly when those images are essentially smut, I worry about the ethics of the images of this page.

I guarantee that there are enough images of bondage taken professionally, share a subject and author, or are otherwise known to not be taken and shared without the consent of their subject. Bondage is no small subject.

Should the dubiously sourced images be removed and replaced, just removed, or otherwise? Is there some policy in Wikimedia commons that I'm not aware of?

TL; DR --- how do we know if the people in these pictures consented to these photos being taken and distributed? Marion Truman, local clown (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)