Talk:Master/slave (BDSM)

Internal Enslavement
The term "Internal Enslavement" is an rarely used neologism, having only 634 hits on google (and moving off the first page, you'll find most of those hits have nothing to do with BDSM). Wikipedia is not the place to promote news terms. Neitherday 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1) I've provided printed references about IE's use.

2) I get 229 results for "Total Power Exchange" returned by Google and 152 for "Internal Enslavement" (the quotes make a difference, and that's excluding the supplemtary "omitted results".) So by your measure, they are of comparable notability. The terms are on BDSM or M/s websites in almost all cases if you do a quoted search.

3) Why did you remove the reference to the LFS Wipipedia from the Total Power Exchange article ("This article incorporates text from ...") which is required by the GFDL? Wikipedia isn't a place to break copyright law. For this reason, I'm reverting your change.

Tanos 15:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about my edit summery, too slow to see you responded here. I'll give you point 3 (and didn't realize that was changed in the revert), but by point 2 perhaps neither total power exchange or internal enslavement are notable? Neitherday 18:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I talke that back, I get over 100,000 hits for "Total Power Exchange", but just over 600 for "Internal Enslavement". Perhaps you have safe search enabled. Neitherday 18:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Try clicking on the last page of results and then see what the count goes down to: they discard the supplementary and omitted results at that point, and they're frequently link-farm spam rather than genuine content (mostly alt.com pages in this case.) Tanos 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

TPE is also described in (for example) Rubel's books and Gloria Brame's "Come Hither" and Peggy Kleinpaste and Charles Moser's "Sadomasochism: Powerful Pleasures". Furthermore, this isn't a TPE/APE/IE article: you're not fighting for the elimination of some un-notable TPE/APE/IE article, but for (what you're claiming) is an un-notable TPE/APE/IE section from an M/s article. Given the printed references I'm providing for TPE and IE, I don't see that your position on this is any more tenable than your removal of the (legally required) acknowledgement of the LFS Wipipedia from the original Total Power Exchange article on 20th June 2007 (which wasn't a revert: you just cut it out claiming the Wipipedia wasn't notable - which is irrelevant to a GFDL acknowledgement.)

Incidently, I was intending to carry on providing proper references for this article, as I had started with the bottom/sub/slave comments that were (before your reverts) backed up by the discussion of the differing views presented by Guy Baldwin in "SlaveCraft". But if you're just going to revert proper referencing of the statements in the article, I don't see the point in doing this work though. Are you familiar enough with the printed literature on M/s to go through and reference it?

Tanos 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike TPE, IE is a very minotiry term. I know that running the Internal Enslavement website might bias you to the term, but its inclusion here is undue weight. That still stands.


 * And as far as removing that acknowledgment, I have already admitted that was an error while I was trimming the reference section. (it still doesn't, however, count as a reference) Neitherday 18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not undue weight at all: your own criterion of the relative number of Google results (229/152) and my own evidence based on being able to find TPE and IE referred to in printed books on the subject, in roughly that ratio, confirms it. I've done the work and substantiated my position with numbers (counted properly) and paper references. Can you substantiate your position at all, or is it just assertions about a subject whose literature you don't seem very familiar with? Tanos 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not 229/152, I don't know where you're getting these numbers information. The numbers I get from google are 108,000 for "Total Power Exchange" vs 636 for "Internal Enslavement". Can you provide a links to your results so that they can be compared? Neitherday 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22total+power+exchange%22&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&start=500&sa=N which says (tonight): Results 301 - 386 of 386 for "total power exchange". and http://www.google.com/search?q=%22internal+enslavement%22&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&start=100&sa=N which says: Results 101 - 152 of 152 for "internal enslavement". You can't take the numbers on the first page because they're only approximate. And as I said, if you click on the "omitted results" link for TPE, you'll see they're almost all standard pieces of text included by the alt.com system in thousands of alt.com profiles. Tanos 22:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I get the same results on the second link, but not for the first. For the first link you provided (the one for "total power exchange") I see "Results 501 - 600 of about 108,000". I wonder if one of us is experiencing a caching or other access anomaly. Perhaps a third person could check the links. Neitherday 22:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that after about the fourth page, even if you click on "omitted results", "Total Power Exchange" returns almost exclusively alt.com profile pages with exactly the same text about it again and again? Whereas up until then, and for the "Internal Enslavement" returns, they're legitimate pages with the phrases included naturally?  Tanos 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of the entries for "Internal Enslavement" past the first page refer to things such as enslavement of a country's own citizens (such as internal enslavement in Sudan). However, perhaps a compromise is in order: Instead of using "internal enslavement" multiple times throughout the article (which in my opinion is clearly undue weight), one use stating it as an alternate term seems reasonable.


 * I'd like to also suggest that spelling out the title "TPE/APE" would look better if it were spelled out as "Total power exchange". Neitherday 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Consensual nonconsent
A recent AfD for Consensual nonconsent ended with the consensus to merge it with this article. I was actually the first to suggest this. However, once I set forth to do the merge, I discovered that another article, Consent (BDSM), is a far more suitable candidate as the merge target, and in fact already has the contents of the source article as a section.

So as not to make a mockery of the AfD process, I'd appreciate others' opinion before I go ahead and turn Consensual nonconsent to a redirect to Consent (BDSM). Perhaps both should be merged here? Owen&times; &#9742;  19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As there seems to be no opposition, I went ahead and did the redirect as described above. Feel free to undo this if you find a better merge target. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Female/Hetro centric
why is this and other articles on wikipedia so female and hetro centric (i.e. fem mistriss, male slave, or vice versa, or fem mistriss and slave - where are the conversations/articles/entries/pictures regarding male-male bdsm? there is a huge gay community out there into bdsm (in fact I would dare say they are larger then the female-male, male-females, female-female communities).  clear POV problem here? I am but a lowly slave myself so I humbly submitt this comment for discussion.  68.49.150.115 (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I could tell, the language used in this article is gender neutral. If you find examples where this is not the case, or can provide relevant pictures that are not hetero-centric, by all means, edit the article to improve it and add better pictures. Wikipedia is not edited by "Masters" only, you know. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "Master" applies to either male or female (as can the term "slave".) As far as whether there are more gay/lesbian M/s relationships or hetero M/s relationships -- who cares?  It isn't a competition Atom (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I must weigh in with the original comment. While technically the language of this and similar articles is neutral, the scope is not. In this article the only image is of a woman. In the article I linked from to get here the only image was of a woman. In the preceding article of three images all were of women. While the words may be technically correct, the visuals and the exclusion of references to the wider range of these activities and their participants skews the presentation in the direction of female submission and hetero-normative behavior. User:Erraunt —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead image
As many people here know, Wikipedia is NOT censored. That's why there are many images with nudity in this article and in many other articles.

However, according to MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE, "lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". So the old lead image that has nudity was replaced with another image without nudity. Both lead images have the exact same context: a person on a leash during some BDSM event. The only difference is the nudity.

MOS:SHOCKVALUE also says: "sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia". But that's not the case here, it is possible to use a lead image without perceived shock value. Both lead images (the old and the new) bring the same information to the readers, the only difference is the nudity. gabibb2  ✉  04:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I would have thought the "shock value" of the lede image would be a person with a collar and lead, not a pair of breasts. Given the subject, I can't see anything wrong with the original lede image. --John B123 (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, nudity has no shock value? We already changed other lead images because of nudity, why do you think you should make an exception in this article? Female breasts is considered partial nudity in many countries, including USA as you can see in nudity article. And the lead image is not only partial nudity, there is full body nudity. I think it is a little hypocritical to say that this image has no shock value. I suggest you rethink what you just said.


 * In this case, it is possible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, as suggested in Wikipedia's guidelines. There are two images with literally the same message, one with full nudity, one without any nudity. So why do you wanna insist so much on this full nudity image? Why do you prefer so much the full nudity image? What does this image add to the article that the other does not add, besides nudity? gabibb2   ✉  19:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point I was making --John B123 (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * What point am I missing? Can you explain what am I missing? You said that a pair of breasts should not be considered "shock value", even with the image containing full nudity, not just a pair of breasts. So I said "It is possible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, as suggested in Wikipedia's guidelines. There are two images with literally the same message, one with full nudity, one without any nudity. So why do you wanna insist so much on this full nudity image? Why do you prefer so much the full nudity image? What does this image add to the article that the other does not add, besides nudity?", this is what I would like to understand. gabibb2   ✉  19:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A couple of notes: WP:RULES notes "...Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules...", "Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines; Rules have occasional exceptions", and "Whether a policy or guideline is an accurate description of best practice is determined through consensus." As John says above, there is some shock value to the collar and lead, as there is with the breasts.  Given the nature of this article, the lede image should be immediately recognizable as outside the conventional mainstream but not so extreme as to be outright offensive.  Bare breasts are non-sexual nudity, on par with what one might see in well-respected art.  If this were an article about stockings or sunglasses, the image would not be appropriate.  In the context of this article and the BDSM space, it's perfectly acceptable to me. HalJor (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bare breasts are non-sexual nudity" is not true in all contexts. I also find the breasts here to be the centerpiece(s); in fact, it was not clear to me at all that this was a BDSM scene. You can barely see the leash, the woman is just as tall as the man in her positioning, and it's a parade on a sunny day--you have to look twice, or three times, to get what is supposed to...no, I still don't get it. This is a poor illustration. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the alternate image, the submissive man is taller than the dominant woman (which is counter to what the roles would otherwise suggest) and although the leash is more visible in that image, the overall attire does not suggest BDSM as much as the bare-breast one does -- it is so dark and full-covering that, as you say, it is not clear to me that it is a BDSM scene either. In any case, the alternate image is, in itself, not an improvement to the article as a whole. HalJor (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "The submissive man is taller than the dominant woman", height is completely irrelevant to define what a master/slave relationship is. "The overall attire does not suggest BDSM as much as the bare-breast one does", I'm glad that you mentioned this, because the overall attire of the image that I posted clearly suggests BDSM much better than the full body nudity one does though. The dominant man does not wear anything associated with the BDSM culture, while in the other image both people use accessories associated with the BDSM culture. It is very obvious to me that the image you are saying is the best of all to represent the article is actually a poor illustration, as Drmies said. There are images without exposed breasts and genitals that could be used as the lead image, we can perfectly follow the guidelines in this situation. gabibb2   ✉  00:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree height is irrelevant to the actual relationship, but an image with a taller dominant is more visually suggestive of the roles. And clothed/nude is more suggestive of dom/sub roles than a fully clothed couple, which need additional visual cues than just a leash.  I agree there must be a better image than either of the two we're debating, but I maintain the clothed couple is not a significant improvement. HalJor (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "An image with a taller dominant is more visually suggestive of the roles" I will continue to insist on saying that height is 100% irrelevant to representing who is dominant. CFNM or CMNF does not represent Master/slave more than any clothed couple either. File:Bdsm slave.jpg and File:Bdsm old guard couple.jpg are two good lead images for Master/slave in a BDSM context without any nudity. But if you still care so much about the submissive person being higher, there is File:Pet slave.jpg. I still prefer the one I posted two days ago though, but these three can illustrate the article with a much lower shock value than the current one with exposed breasts and genitals (and they all better represent a BDSM look as well). So there's no reason to insist on not following Lead image guidelines in my opinion. gabibb2   ✉  01:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Use common sense in interpreting and applying policies and guidelines". Exactly, that was my point. If there is an image with full body nudity and another image without nudity which both carry the same message, why should we choose the image with full body nudity? A naked body doesn't add anything to the article except shock value, there's no reason to insist on an image with full body nudity if there is another with less shock value that represents the article in the same way. Use common sense. What does the older image add to the article that the newer one does not add, besides exposed breasts and genitals? Why do you prefer so much the image with full body nudity? Those were the questions I brought up and no one answered. gabibb2   ✉  21:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * MOS:SHOCKVALUE needs to be taken in context. A person holding a shotgun would have no shock value in the article hunting, but would have in the article teaching. Similarly, nudity would have shock value in stock exchange but not in sex. As this is an "adult" theme, it could be argued that the reader would not be surprised to see nudity (which is reinforced by the other images in the article). Whilst the lead image doesn't have to feature nudity, it shouldn't be excluded because it does.
 * MOS:SHOCKVALUE is also subjective. What would shock one person wouldn't another. For example, rightly or wrongly adult themes are usually illustrated with younger people, so using older people in the picture could have some shock value to some.
 * Whilst I'm not saying the original image is the best for the lead, the proposed alternatives offer no improvement. (Going back to Drmies' point, at first glance File:Bdsm slave.jpg looks like an oddly dressed couple holding hands).
 * I'm getting an inkling that the issue is actually more about gender than nudity. Looking at the article overall, the illustrations predominantly show females as the slave, so there could be some validity in an argument that the article is unbalanced. If that is the real issue, then it should be discussed as such. --John B123 (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "As this is an adult theme, it could be argued that the reader would not be surprised to see nudity", this is not true in all contexts, nudity is not required to illustrate this specific article, however, there may be nudity throughout the article because Wikipedia is not censored. Take the articles bondage positions and methods, sexual roleplay and cock and ball torture for example. They all have images with nudity through the article, but according to Wikipedia's guidelines, "lead images should be of least shock value", so they're following the guidelines because there is no reason not to.


 * "What would shock one person wouldn't another". Exactly. If we know that the image with exposed breasts and genitals has more shock value than those images without any nudity, why should we prefer the image with exposed breasts and genitals if the images without any nudity bring the same message and their general attire suggests BDSM better than the current image?


 * "the illustrations predominantly show females as the slave, so there could be some validity in an argument that the article is unbalanced". This is somewhat contradictory. Are you arguing that the article is unbalanced in terms of gender, but the current lead image is still your favorite over all the others mentioned on this talk page? gabibb2   ✉  12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Following your logic, as some people would see "shock value" in the subject matter of this article, we shouldn't have a lead image at all. I don't see how you interpret my comments as contradictory. I am not stating that the slave in the lead picture should be female. What I am saying is that I find your objections to nudity in the lead image invalid and that the alternative images you are proposing are not an improvement. For absolute clarity, I have no objection to the lead image being changed to something that illustrates the subject better, and from that point of view nudity and the gender of the slave are irrelevant. --John B123 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, following my logic, lead images should be of least shock value, not images with no shock value at all. This is exactly what is written in the Wikipedia guidelines and that's what I've been saying since the beginning. I still don't see the arguments as to why the current image is better than all the other ones I mentioned. The current image is a poor illustration as stated by Drmies and full-body nudity carries more shock value than a clothed couple to represent Master/slave relationship. There is no reason to continue to insist on not following the guidelines, none of the images I mentioned illustrate the article worse than the current image. gabibb2   ✉  13:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You seen to be giving undue weight to the shock value of nudity given the subject matter. Both myself and other editors have already tried to explain why they don't find the images you propose an improvement. --John B123 (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You two have not yet explained why the current image is better than the others mentioned here. I'm not giving undue weight to the shock value, an image with exposed breasts and genitals obviously carries more shock value than a clothed couple to illustrate a Master/slave relationship.


 * This whole conversation doesn't seem to have made sense so far. I changed the image just because I was following the guidelines and having common sense. You liked the old image better, so you reverted the revision. I still want to know why the current image is so superior to all the others mentioned. The current image should be much superior than all the others mentioned to be kept here even with a clearly higher shock value. gabibb2   ✉  14:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Your changes of images were reverted by multiple editors not just me. The onus is on you show the proposed new image is better, not the other way round. --John B123 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

A modest proposal: let's have both. -- The Anome (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it was originally reverted by an anonymous user complaining about removing a female submission image and adding a male submission image. It is not a valid argument and you yourself said that the article is unbalanced in terms of gender because the illustrations predominantly show females as the slave. And my point was not even the gender equality, it was shock value guidelines. I am taking into account the arguments of the people who are participating in this discussion.

"The onus is on you show the proposed new image is better, not the other way round". No, according to guidelines "lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". There is no argument yet as to why the current image is superior enough to be kept even with a clearly higher shock value. If you think that the current image is not superior to illustrate a Master/slave relationship to all the others I mentioned here, there is no reason for it to remain the lead image because there are other Master/slave relationship images without full-body nudity. gabibb2  ✉  15:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This would not solve the problem that I pointed out in my first comment. Unless you're talking about moving the current lead image to the middle of the article and adding one of those three master/slave images without full-body nudity as lead image. This would be in line with what is written in MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE. gabibb2   ✉  15:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah. So your entire approach on this is about removing nudity, then. While MOS:SHOCKVALUE might prevent this image from being appropriate on many other articles, it clearly doesn't apply here as nudity is entirely appropriate to the topic, and WP:NOTCENSORED takes precedence. -- The Anome (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, the guidelines say "sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia". But it is not the case here. There are other images without full-body nudity that can illustrate master/slave relationship at least as good as the current one. Nudity does not add anything to the topic (and I mentioned other BDSM articles as an example some comments above). There was no reason to revert my revision because all other images mentioned here could represent the topic with a much lower shock value without reducing the quality of the article. gabibb2   ✉  16:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The original revert by the IP was with the edit summary "pls discuss on Talk page before removing images. See WP:NOT CENSORED". Your interpretation of this as adds weight to my thoughts that this is not really about nudity but gender. No matter how right you think you are, it's up to you to convince others of that and gain a consensus to make the changes. No amount of passion or conviction that you are right overrides this. If other editors disagree with your proposal and reasoning behind it that is their prerogative. There is no duty for them to prove to your satisfaction that your proposal and reasoning is incorrect. --John B123 (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP said in my talk page "A lof of BDSM images are there from a long time. Don't replace them just because you don't like them. Additionally, you seem to be putting pics of male submission after removing pics of female submission". Let's not be naive, it is pretty clear to me that it was just an anonymous user bothered by adding a male submission image, as he was using gender to justify his point. But anyway, this information is 100% irrelevant to the conversation. It really doesn't matter to me if you suggest an image with female slave in a Master/slave relationship if you find a good one without nudity or if you said that the article is unbalanced in terms of gender because the illustrations predominantly show females as the slave, gender was never my point, all my arguments have always been about lead image guidelines. As I said, I am taking into account the arguments of the people who are participating in this discussion (me, you, HalJor, Drmies and The Anome).


 * I don't know why you keep running away from my question. I still haven't seen your argument explaining why the current image is better than the other three (File:Bdsm slave.jpg, File:Bdsm old guard couple.jpg, File:Pet slave.jpg) that were mentioned here to justify not allowing an image without nudity. What is so special about this full-body nudity image that the other three do not have to replace it without reducing the quality of the article? What is so special about this image that it should be kept as the lead image over the other ones? gabibb2   ✉  17:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said before, it doesn't work like that. It's up to you to show your proposed changes are an improvement not the other way round. I've tried to explain my viewpoint, I'm sorry if you can't accept that. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said before, the guidelines say "lead images should be of least shock value; an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred". It is perfectly possible to avoid using a lead image with full-body nudity, there are three other options here that follow the guidelines better and the general attire of the three images suggest BDSM better than the current image, as already mentioned in this talk page. On the other hand, there is still no argument to explain why the current image is superior enough to justify not allowing one of the images without nudity. gabibb2   ✉  18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is going around in circles. You obviously won't accept the principle that as proposer of changes you need to convince people that those changes improve the article, not that everybody else should convince you that the changes wouldn't improve it. --John B123 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This will go in circles only if you continue to avoid all my questions and points. You did not say anything that invalidates my arguments made in the previous comment. gabibb2   ✉  18:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I and other editors have previously stated, given the subject matter of the article, nudity is to be expected so there is no MOS:SHOCKVALUE using nudity in the lead image, therefore there is no foundation to your argument. I don't know how to put it any clearer than that. --John B123 (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As it was already mentioned on this talk page, nudity has no relevance to describe a master/slave relationship (and other BDSM articles with lead images that follow Wikipedia guidelines have also been mentioned here), so that doesn't make nudity to be expected by everyone. Drmies has also explained very well how the current image is not the best available to illustrates the article. MOS:SHOCKVALUE says specifically that "sometimes it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value, for example in articles on human genitalia". And it is quite clear that a master/slave relationship is not included in "impossible", since there are three other options mentioned here that could illustrate the article accurately. gabibb2   ✉  19:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw and understood that the previous times you posted it. Keep repeating your interpretation and application of MOS:SHOCKVALUE doesn't make it any more convincing. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion until such time it moves forward. --John B123 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion can't move forward if you continue to avoid my questions and arguments, while I answer all your questions and present arguments for each of your statements. Your way of participating in the conversation makes it seem that it is not possible to reach a consensus with you. gabibb2   ✉  20:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've answered your questions multiple times. If you chose to ignore them because they don't agree with what you want then I fail to see what more I can do. --John B123 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You answered only some of them. Can you answer what the current image adds to the article that the other options do not add, besides full-body nudity? I am genuinely curious to know because everything you've been saying so far just implies that your answer to that question is "nothing". gabibb2   ✉  20:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

, you find yourself in a minority of one, in a circular argument with several other editors. Please re-read WP:BRD. Whatever this is, it isn't consensus to make the changes you want to make. I am sympathetic to making Wikipedia's images of BDSM behavior more representative of the mix of genders and roles in the real world, but this is not the way to go about it. -- The Anome (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "you find yourself in a minority of one, in a circular argument with several other editors". This is not true. HalJor had an argument. Drmies made a counterpoint and suggested another image. HalJor had an argument against Drmies' suggestion. I made another counterpoint with three suggestions (File:Bdsm slave.jpg, File:Bdsm old guard couple.jpg, File:Pet slave.jpg). Now I'm waiting to hear his thoughts on these suggestions to illustrate a master/slave relationship. What your're caling as "circular argument with several other editors" it seems to has happened only between two users: John and me. If you have read the entire discussion, you've seen that I'm bringing arguments about how there are three other options here that follow the guidelines better and the overall attire of the three images suggest BDSM better than the current image. He refused to bring counterpoints to those images and to say why the current image is superior enough to justify not allowing one of the images without nudity. My last comment is a good summary of the whole conversation.
 * "I am sympathetic to making Wikipedia's images of BDSM behavior more representative of the mix of genders and roles in the real world". John was the one who originally made an argument about the article being unbalanced in terms of gender. Although we know this is true, I'm not talking about gender, all my arguments have always been about Wikipedia guidelines, since nudity has no relevance to describe a master/slave relationship and there are many good alternatives that can illustrate the article at least as good as the current lead image. Other BDSM articles were mentioned here as example to how shock value guidelines can also be applied here. gabibb2   ✉  12:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The photos categorized in Commons as BDSM are almost all lousy. Some are worse than the big breast one in the article right now. I repeat, if you can't see the leash (or whatever element indicates domination and submission), and if the whole set-up looks like a street party (which, duh, it was), it doesn't really make the point. The photo I picked has a man on his hands and knees, on a leash. Seems pretty clear to me. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that your image has clear elements that suggests domination and submission in a BDSM context and it can be used as lead image. But what about File:Bdsm slave.jpg and File:Pet slave.jpg? Do you think the leash is visible enough and is there enough BDSM elements involved? The article is about a BDSM relationship called master/slave, so these two images have an even more "relationship" context because they show a couple in my opinion. I have no objection to using your suggestion though. gabibb2   ✉  15:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think they are terrible photographs, with way too many distractions (including the background in the second), and in both cases that leash is barely visible. Plus, in neither image is there anything besides the leash that indicates domination. Sure, the one guy is kneeling, but he's obviously having a great time. The man on his hands and knees plays the part much better. But what I am most interested in is that the current stupid image is removed. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "But he's obviously having a great time". BDSM is always consensual, he's doing what he likes, just like everyone else is in all the BDSM images. I don't see a problem in showing someone "having a great time". But they're all better to illustrate the article as the lead image than the current one, I agree with you. gabibb2   ✉  15:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Capital Pride Parade DC 2016 (27904998606).jpg is more suggestive of Animal roleplay to me. As this article is about Master/slave relationship ideally both parties should be in the lead image. I've previously stated my objections to File:Bdsm slave.jpg, but File:Pet slave.jpg is ok. Also File:CSD 2006 Cologne BDSM 04.jpg and File:D&s BDSM couple.jpg may be suitable.--John B123 (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. Somehow I thought your previous objections were about File:Bdsm old guard couple.jpg, which is why I didn't mention it here again. I misread "old couple" instead of "oddly couple" lol. I agree with any of the images you suggested and you have a good point about the animal one. gabibb2   ✉  15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we change the image? It seems that we are already agreeing that the current image can be changed for other alternatives. gabibb2   ✉  21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the image to be changed to one of the 3 mentioned above. (File:D&s BDSM couple.jpg would be my first choice) It would probably be best to get the opinions of the other editors involved in this discussion before making any change. --John B123 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * and, do you have anything against these three images mentioned by John? Can we change the current lead image to one of them? gabibb2   ✉  21:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They're all terrible photos, but everything is better than what we have right now. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Either File:D&s BDSM couple.jpg or File:CSD 2006 Cologne BDSM 04.jpg are preferable, thank you for digging through the options and selecting these. "Couple" is very clear but is a wide image, may not look good on mobile devices or narrow screens.  "Cologne" demonstrates the roles more strongly but isn't as easy to read.  I'd vote for "Couple" unless it introduces significant layout issues. HalJor (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've reverted yet another of Gabibb2's edits as although discussion is moving on there is as yet no agreed consensus for the change. Normally, I'd be happy to go with the flow (in a submissive fashion perhaps?) but Gabibb's crusade and attempts to force change prior to discussion precludes that. Discussion is progressing, but has not terminated yet with a decision. Curved Space (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm assuming you're the logged account of the anonymous user who originally reverted the changes of Outline of BDSM and Master/slave (BDSM), am I correct? If not, it is sad to see that the person who originally wanted to start all this has not commented here. Anyway, as you can see,, and  all agreed that the current image should be changed, HalJor and John B123 voted for File:D&s BDSM couple.jpg, Drmies and I said it could be any of the images mentioned above. "There is as yet no agreed consensus for the change" doesn't seem to be a correct statement. So I don't think you should keep reverting the lead image.  gabibb2   ✉  12:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You assume incorrectly. However, I have just reverted you over there for making changes not backed by consensus, and while you are proposing a change.  There is a mass of discussion above -- if you want to keep things absolutely incontrovertible (spelled correctly?) put your proposal together as a proper request, then if as you assume you'll get your way, you've got the argument to back it up.  Curved Space (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "I have just reverted you over there for making changes not backed by consensus". There was a consensus though. John proposed three alternatives to replace the current image. I agreed with him and I said "can we change the image?". He said he wanted "the opinions of the other editors involved in this discussion before making any change". The other editors involved in this discussion have also agreed to replace the current image. As I said, John and HalJor both voted for File:D&s BDSM couple.jpg, Drmies and I said it could be any of the images mentioned by John. The discussion was over, so the image was changed. If you want to give your opinion, we are here to listen to you, but you cannot continue to try to impose your personal preference above Wikipedia's guidelines after there has been a consensus here. gabibb2   ✉  22:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Either File:Pet slave.jpg or File:D&s BDSM couple.jpg seem fine to me, but just changing them for the sake of removing nudity is the wrong way to go about it. There's an awful lot of nudity going on in the BDSM scene, and I see no problem with articles on BDSM reflecting that. -- The Anome (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. We're just following Wikipedia lead image guidelines because nudity has zero relevance to illustrate what master/slave relationship is. So there is no reason to not allowing a lead image without nudity on this article. gabibb2   ✉  03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gabibb2 ... have you recently created another account with the name User:Alex444112 ? If yes, then pls understand that it's against Wikipedia policy of WP:SOCKHELP . Thanks 2405:201:6007:4014:D9FA:D103:887E:BE81 (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Obviously not. What does this random account have to do with my account? I know you're the IP from India who was originally requesting to keep the old lead image without any reason. Now you're mad at me for failing to impose your personal tastes above the Wikipedia guidelines. I don't care if you're Curved Space or not, feel free to open a sockpuppet investigation. I'm from Portuguese Wikipedia and I have no reason to create a new account to do what I’ve always been doing since last year. gabibb2   ✉  03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop inferring that I'm the IP address also commenting on this topic. I've said not, so there's no reason to make a repeat comment regarding your assumption.  Curved Space (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

PROD
Please read WP:PROD, or just look at the PROD notice on the page which clearly states "If this template is removed, do not replace it." The template was removed by with the edit summary "rv bias". This is a clear objection to the PROD. I agree with that, your assertations of Abusive behaviour is clearly POV pushing. Now please stop your your disruptive behaviour. --John B123 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The process under WP:CONTESTED suggests that the next step would be to nominate for deletion via WP:AFD but I can assure you that WP:SNOWBALL will apply. HalJor (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)