Talk:Cock and ball torture

Initial
This article is why we can't have nice things. 76.95.40.6 (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.63.203 (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This has gone too far! Where are the Wiki editors ? The pictures ARE disturbing for the general public. I will complain to Wikipedia admins to remove this article as whole because this entry and its vulgar title do not belong to a general education encyclopedia. Why would anyone who is not involved in Sadomasochism need such a detailed account of a practice perceived as shocking and disturbing by ~95% of the population? I find even more irritating a strong feeling that the authors displayed their images only for the purpose of their own sexual gratification. These photos seem so exhibitionistic! Why is there a need for a detailed and graphic description of the devices and techniques? This article definitely belongs to a specialized fetish site or a fetish encyclopedia, which Wiki is not! If Wikipedia really finds this text indispensable for "enlightening" the young generations, I (objectively) believe that it is entirely sufficient to put: 1) introduction as it is, 2) safety risks, End! No photos, no detailed stories explaining their pains and pleasures...and the title has to be changed! I also do not see in this rational approach any kind of discrimination, censorship or restriction of freedom of speech, as claimed by the supporters of various violent fetishes (again,which represent a very small portion of the population). Unfortunately, they have to understand that the term PUBLIC encyclopedia means it has to stay accessible to everyone and that we also have to consider the moral boundaries of the absolute majority. Some people would be frankly horrified and shocked if accidentally arrived at this page, not to mention the children. Please do not be selfish and remove this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.147.44 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Will not happen. Wikipedia is not a "public/general knowledge" encyclopedia, it is a free encyclopedia that documents notable information. Our notability guidelines are clearly detailed here, for which a fetish frequently enjoyed by a significant minority and covered in reliable 3rd party publications unambiguously fulfills. Removing content that may shock people would remove most articles on medical diseases and the horrors of warfare. If you feel that there should be an exception to this because you believe nobody would find this informative then please consider whether you believe a parent whose child tells them they are into cock and ball torture should be searching through a sadomasochism wiki to find information or whether you believe Wikipedia would be a more "appropriate" source. The censoring of content that may shock or offend is not a practice that Wikipedia engages in.AerobicFox (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is an example of a situation where the rationale of "Wikipedia is not censored" is being heavily abused by..."a significant minority".  This article seems to have been significantly contributed to by someone or some people who are very enthusiastic about this subject, and the pictures clearly evidence the degree of this "enthusiasm".  It seems quite apparent that in addition to NPOV problems, the editors of this particular article are simply (ab)using this Wikipedia policy to justify posting those pictures here.


 * I am not shocked by these photos; unlike the subject of at least some of them.  But I do think that maybe they are too much...even one or two would be sufficient?  Typically Wikipedia articles of this length only have one image, if they have any at all: this one seems to be image-heavy...


 * Furthermore, perhaps the text describing these fetishes suffers from some non-NPOV issues; but in itself seems to be sufficient to give information on the subject without the over-abundant photos. I agree that this article requires serious re-writing; or at least a reduction in the number of images.   But I do think that the tone of the writing should be in a more 'textbook' manner, which is to say detached and clinical.  98.232.32.54 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Very telling that this comment is unsigned.
 * Wikipedia is a GENERAL encyclopeadia, this means that everything from John C. Calhoun to Pussies to the chemical synthesis for Vanillin. While I agree that Cock and Ball torture is disturbing, history has shown, from prohibition to the entirety of the USSR, that censorship only creates more of the censored information, a classic Streisand Effect.
 * Anyway, everything should be categorized, including sexual fetishes, period. With that, the only change I would propose is a NSFW filter for non-registered users or a filter blanking the article asking the user if they want to proceed in viewing NSFW/disturbing content.
 * Please direct yourself to the nearest Orthodox Church, you'll have a blast. 25eanglin (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)