User talk:Dgloclou/sandbox

Ivy:  sharing some comments from a grad student friend of mine in gender studies: Interesting article! Here are some areas of improvement: 1) In the section 70's, you maintain that feminists could not engage in BDSM without being hypocritical. You might want to explain what you mean by this or use a source that illuminates how feminist politics were believed to be in conflict. What are these ethical/political conflicts? 2) You cite Dorothy Allison. Do you refer to her autobiography, "Skin"? If not, you might want to check that out because she talks about conceptual lesbianism which seems important to understanding the historical and contemporary views of BDSM. 3) The section 90's, you state that Hopkins puts forth a specific argument. You may need to make the points of their argument clearer. What specific points or concepts do they suggest need to be considered? 4) You may also want to revisit some of your subtitles for clarity. The subtitle, "Lesbian BDSM" is not very descriptive. Perhaps "Perspectives on Lesbian BDSM" Also, you may want to consider rephrasing the first line to be a statement rather than a question. 5) The section on pornography and BDSM is very important, though a little under developed. You may want to reconnect the feminist Sex Wars and the scholarship of this academic era to the issue of pornography. Andrea Dworkin for example has argued that pornography is another form of patriarchal violence which some theorists have stretched to include sadomasochism and BDSM. I'm not sure how expansive your project is supposed to be, so feel free to take what is useful and leave what isn't. [:)] Dgloclou (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I have not explained BDSM is because it is way beyond the scope of this article and would be longer than the article itself as it stands to explain. Hence the linking it to the actual wiki BDSM page. I know it seems like it might be simple to explain the acronym, but in reality it's not. Dgloclou (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey Drgc, I do no know who M is but I do agree with her point of needing an explanation, of what BDSM is. I do think that one time for the whole acronym would be adequate for the whole article. Other than that the article looks good, I liked the history sections behind BDSM and how you illustrated both sides of the argument does good to create that neutral'ish' point of view. I do think that the heading of Feminist BDSM is appropriate because on either side of the argument I would argue that feminists are typically the aspect of population that would be attracted to BDSM sex practices, as well being radical enough to hold an opinion. I did not see anything worth editing, although that other person does raise a point about that one run on sentence, but I am not the grammatically inclined individual.

Just Joking I did not realize that there were two editors for your aticle, lol

Good Work!

I also think that fleshing out what BDSM is and entails a bit more would be good. Aside from that I think that the intro is very good. It would be good to define "safe word" and how/when it is used. Maybe a bit more about how boundaries are defined.Kalimgreen (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Feminist Viewpoints now needs some examples of who is saying what. It makes me wonder which groups or individuals think what.Kalimgreen (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Lesbians BDSM section I would rephrase what you say about Calhoun, maybe don't say "explains very well" maybe say Calhoun elaborates, make it a bit more neutral.Kalimgreen (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Drgc and Ivy -- I've made a number of copyediting and stylistic changes Saturday afternoon, June 2. I've also marked several places where a citation is needed; in some places, you've already got the references, you just need to cite it again. See this link for how name your references, so that you can have multiple footnotes to the same source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NAMEDREFS#Multiple_references_to_the_same_footnote

I've also added links to Wikipedia pages for the famous feminists you cite, and a reference to the 1982 Barnard conference in the history section. Also, there are a few notes to yourselves, or editorial queries placed by other class members, and I've marked those with bold AND italic, so that they can be easily spotted and addressed.

You're well on your way! WGST490 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving M's comments to the talk page

M's Comments
Hi Ladies nice start. I do have some suggestions for you though! Also, I only had to make 2 edits... which you can see in the history:) First thing first, I think it would be beneficial to define what BDSM stands for, I myself have no idea and I don't know how many readers will either, remember to always think of your audience. If you do a "what is it" section you could also say how it suspected to affect women. In the 80's History you mention authors (I presume)by the names of Ardill and O'Sullivan... Who are they and could you do a link to their bio? Or a open sourced bio online that is credible? 90's - Last sentence is confusing... were those your own notes? For Feminist Viewpoints Now it might look and read better if it just says Current Viewpoints Check on your citation placement, does it go inside or outside the period of the sentence discussing the info you are citing? Define SM for your audience. It is fine to use abbreviations after you have first spelled it out at least once ((Example: Eastern Washington University (EWU).....! ....EWU....)) Look at the 3rd sentence under Practitioners is possibly a run-on... I don't know where it should be separated but it's really really long. Could you link Jessica Wakeman to a bio? Or explain who she is and what she has done? Under the porn section a citation is needed to explain who says what the common misconceptions are and who says that porn is the issue. Dgloclou (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)