Talk:Hogtie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removed 'behind the body', in my experience this term refers to tying all four limbs together ventrally, ie in front of the body. I guess it's used for a variety of ties! Andrewa 18:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out how you would have tied a pig's feet behind its back! The OED agrees with you, simply all four feet of an animal, or the hands and feet of a person, tied together. fabiform | talk 18:33, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Prescriptive sentence

I removed the following:

In no circumstances in bondage play should anything be tied round the neck that could cause someone to strangle.

It's poor encyclopedic style to tell people what they should or should not do. — Matt Crypto 15:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it out, rewording it (perhaps as "Tying anything around the neck is extremely dangerous and may cause death") might be better. After all, the Arsenic article might not say "Don't eat poison" but instead say "Eating poison is fatal."

Yep, sounds good; indeed, someone's already added the sentence "in addition, tying anything around the neck has a high risk of death from strangulation, which is nice, factual and non-preachy. — Matt Crypto 00:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why nude and why female only?

I think it is inappropriate to have nude models showing various bondage positions. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a porn site.

Also, why do all the bondage models have to be female? This is sexual discrimination, in my opinion. To be fair, I think this site should show clothed male bondage models as well.

Fair comment. I recently removed one that showed explicit nudity. I think it's best to avoid any nudity in this article, because nudity is not necessary to illustrate the topic, and it's clearly not the best thing to indiscriminately include bondage porn in an encyclopedia just for kicks. Also, I think the current images are a little too elaborate to be good illustrations. Better, in my opinion, would be a fully-clothed person just showing the basic tie. (I don't think it's essential that there be a gender balance.) Ideally, we want good illustration, and to avoid unnecessary titillation (because it's offensive to some). — Matt Crypto 19:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

That's why I suggest using pictures of male models. It won't be offensive even if the model is topless. If no one is willing to model, there should be some pictures that you can find from the news. After all, it is a method commonly used by the police. Those pictures won't infringe any copyright. 5 October 2005

Sadly, they probably would. — Matt Crypto 06:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How about those pictures with the lady models (which we see now)? Are they pictures taken by you personally, or are they from some other websites? If the former is the case, you may help by finding a willing male model. 6 October 2005

To clarify, these photos weren't taken by me, uploaded by me, nor added to the article by me. — Matt Crypto 18:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, one of the pictures here shows the lady fully clothed. But it's not easy to find bondage illustrations of clothed men. Maybe Mr Crypto could get someone to tie him up and photograph him? 81.153.43.82 21:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly the first time I've ever been asked to be a bondage model. But no ;-) — Matt Crypto 15:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If the point of bondage is to make the tied person feel helpless, nudity is an important enhancing factor. If it is an erotic experience, many people would argue that sexy lingerie is almost essential. But I agree that excessive nudity or titillation is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and hope that I do not transgress in photos I insert. All four pictures currently in this article seem to be from the same person, lifted from the same web site. Taxwoman 12:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sexy lingerie or nudity might well be an essential part of the "bondage experience". However, if we're trying to illustrate a method of tying someone up — a method that can be used in a variety of contexts (like law enforcement) — we don't need to illustrate the entire "bondage experience". I suggest we remove the first image, because the model has little clothing, and we already have another illustration of an "elaborate bondage hogtie" (the second picture), so it's mostly redundant anyway. — Matt Crypto 15:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The one demonstrating the vertical hogtie also shows a female model in little clothing. This should not be here. 9 October 2005

Yes, perhaps. Personally, I'm reluctant to remove anything that could be argued to be acting as illustration of any significance, but I don't think Image:Model in vertical hogtie.jpg adds a great deal to the encyclopedic nature of this article, particularly as the model is nude. — Matt Crypto 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article seems to make reference to the position in the picture, and an encyclopedia with no pictures to illustrate concepts in an article is going to be pretty boring. As for the nudity, there's nothing graphic, in fact one can't see anything more than one would be able to see at the local beach in summer. There are precidents for showing nudity (just take a look at the areas covering the penis and vagina for "hard core" and graphic pornographic images. There is nothing wrong with those images either, as they illustrate concepts explained in articles. Wikipedia should be carefull not to promote pornography, but at the same time should not allow itself to become a vehicle for un-neccessary and needless censorship. The statement "The one demonstrating the vertical hogtie also shows a female model in little clothing. This should not be here" sounds and awful lot like someone wanting to promote sensorship on the site. Should this be the case, then to be consistant Wikipedia should remove all images in the entire site that show any form of nudity whatsoever.

Nudity is acceptable, but we want to avoid being controversial and offensive (to some people) if there's no compelling reason for it. Accordingly, nudity is only really acceptable if it is essential to illustrate the topic (e.g. penis etc). In this case, I think that the illustrative value of the nude photos is not sufficient to justify including what is essentially bondage porn. A hogtie can be — and is in the other photos — adequately illustrated using a fully-clothed model. — Matt Crypto 11:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(By the way, your statement about your "local beach" suggests you aren't really thinking about the wide and international audience of Wikipedia. Obviously, different cultures have different standards. My point is that nude photos are likely to offend an awfully large proportion of the planet, and that we should therefore be totally convinced that we have no other option before we decide to use them.) — Matt Crypto 11:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

So why is the "suspended hogtie" picture acceptable, when the model is nearly nude? And if we want to make Wikipedia acceptable to all cultures, we'll have to delete the great majority of pictures of women on Wikipedia. Taxwoman 17:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument. I'm not arguing that we make Wikipedia acceptable to all cultures; I am arguing that, if we need to include a photo that is likely to prove offensive to a large proportion of people, then we'd better have a good reason for doing so. I'm happy to argue that nudity is often necessary to properly illustrate the topic (breast, penis, clitoris etc), but we can illustrate a hogtie just as well with a clothed model as with a nude model. I would argue that nudity should not be used if there are other options for illustration that would be just as informative. — Matt Crypto 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who said "Obviously, different cultures have different standards." It is not my view that the photo you removed is "likely to offend an awfully large proportion of the planet". And will you please answer my question: why is the "suspended hogtie" picture acceptable, when the model is nearly nude?
Taxwoman 21:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I said "different cultures have different standards" in response to a person arguing that the photo was OK because you could see much the same sort of nudity down at the "local beach". I'm not arguing anything about the "suspended hogtie" photo — I've not argued either that it's acceptable or not acceptable, and I think it's beside the point. I would have thought it to be undisputed that a photograph of a nude woman practicing sexual bondage is likely to be offensive to a non-trivial proportion of people in the world; I'm surprised you would disagree with that. We can get equal illustrative value from using a non-nude model to show the same thing; and indeed we do. — Matt Crypto 22:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I was joking when I suggested that Mr Crypto could get someone to tie him up and photograph him. However, if he really wants pictures of clothed men in bondage and nobody else seems willing or able to supply them, is he now prepared to put up or shut up?
81.153.43.82 22:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Mr Crypto understands this topic at all and maybe there needs to be a different moderator here. The fact that he refers to the pictures as "bondage porn" very much illustrates that. Porn implies something that you buy in a magazine and the local dirty books store. The fact is, that bondage DOES include nudity. The title "use in sexual bondage" makes that pretty clear. Sexual bondage is, funny enough, sexual in nature. The pictures of the Penis on it's respective page need not be a real one, an illustration would be enough, but the writer on that page is wrote the page to show a particular subject, without any incumbance with regards to "standards" or what people might think about its "pornographic" nature. Same here, the writer has placed the image, not because it is nude, but because it shows a particular position. Mr Crypto hit the nail on the head when he said that the image need not be nude to demonstrate the point being made. It's for that very reason that the image can equally BE nude, for the nudity is indeed not relevant, and as the subject matter is clearly of a sexual nature, then should there be or not be nudity is of no relevance at all. As for ensuring that the site is balanced enough to not offend as much as possible other cultures, if a person is of a culture that is offended by such images, why exactly is it that they are looking up information on Hogties used in sexual bondage? 144.137.32.46 23:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I would like to remain anonymous. I am the same one who started complaining about the nudity on this website. This site is an encyclopedia, and is meant to be informational, but should also by all means suitable for people of all ages. A film that contains nudity gets an R-rating or even an X-rating. This site is not even R-rated, which means it should not look like a porn site! If one is looking for nude bondage pictures, there are plenty of porn websites available. I want to express my view concerning sexual bondage. I do NOT agree that the word "sexual" should be associated with nudity at all. Sexual bondage talks about the experience of arousing one's sexual excitement by being tied up, and it really depends whether one needs to be naked in order to achieve this excitement. (I myself do not find it necessary at all.) If you insist that nudity is a must for sexual excitement, I will have to say that you are much too subjective! The point I want to make here is still that this is a G-rated site and should contain mostly G-rated materials, unless when really necessary, like in certain topics that Matt Crypto mentioned. A picture showing a fully-clothed bound model is adequately informational, but any nude pictures have gone too far. It is NOT a matter of "put up or shut up"!! Anyone who puts up pictures here should be responsible for the consequences! Last time I also mentioned that all these topics about bondage should not show pictures of female models only, because I think some women will really be offended! I am a woman and I feel very much this way! Only showing bound females really degrades women and this is sexual discrimination. I just think that a few pictures of male bondage may help the site keep a balance, that's all. I have no pictures to "put up," but it does NOT mean that I have to "shut up"!!! 21 October 2005

The issues here seem to fall into two categories. Should nude images be here at all, and secondly, should naked images be in this particular article. One administrator wrote something interesting about the issue of censorship:

"

I'm opposed to censorship. Wikipedia needs to be able to reflect all verifiable human knowledge. It can't afford to be censored to fit someone's expectations of what's appropriate for schoolchildren or any other audience.

Corollary: I oppose all censorship tagging schemes. There have been a number of proposals to tag Wikipedia articles or images so that people can filter out "offensive" ones. However, there's no way to do this without throwing away Wikipedia's neutrality principles. Wikipedia editors have roundly rejected even the most minimal tagging scheme, thus showing that censorship tagging is not the way Wikipedia should be run.

Corollary: Wikipedia does not blush. Articles about "offensive" topics such as sexual acts, violence, or fringe beliefs should be unblushing. They should provide the detail that is necessary to understand the subject. A "wink wink, nudge nudge" prurient attitude is unscholarly and more offensive than any topic itself."

Discussing the second point, the previous writer is absolutly write - wikipedia should not be some sort of soft porn website. There are indeed plenty of places for that. However, in saying that, the article makes no suggestion that bondage either requires a person to be naked, semi-naked, or fully clothed to enjoy such activities. Bondage can be, and often is, practised in these three degrees of dress. So therefore to insist that there be no naked images because bondage can be, and often is, enjoyed fully clothed is equally as discriminitory as someone suggesting that bondage can only be enjoyed if the person IS fully naked. A person may take exception that the suggestion is made the bondage can be enjoyed fully clothed when in fact they make the point that they themselves do not agree with this, but this is why the article makes no such destinction as to the degree of dress, and so therefore the images should also refelct this lack of destinction as well. Unless this is in fact a matter of censorship, then I must suggest that before images and references are simply removed that people who believe in this course of action talk about it first with the admins. handling the general issue of censorship.

Please could you sign your posts (~~~~), as it is difficult to follow discussion otherwise. — Matt Crypto 16:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with Mr Crypto is that he keeps changing his ground. Does he object to things that would offend "an awfully large proportion of the planet", "a large proportion of people" or "a non-trivial proportion of people in the world"? I contested that the removed photo met his first statement; had it done so, I might have removed it myself. He responds with the third statement, which is an utterly different thing. What does "non-trivial" mean? If it means say 1% (which is more than the population of the United Kingdom, so is not a trivial number), then I would strongly oppose censorship to avoid offending 1%. If he states his position clearly and unambiguously and doesn't keep changing it, then either I will agree with him or I can take part in a sensible discussion. In any case, as this article has been pruned, this discussion should now move to another article.
Taxwoman 12:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Just call me "Matt"; "Crypto" isn't a surname (It's a parenthetical remark if anything). I wish to emphasise that I don't have a blanket objection to nude images, or images that are offensive. These images would be fine on an article such as Bondage erotica, or whatever. My objection is conditional; that is, I only object to images that are A) likely to be offensive to a non-trival proportion of people in the world; and B) the offensiveness is not necessary to illustrate the topic. I don't see myself as shifting my position in what I say, I'm afraid. To be clear, I think it's quite evident that a nude woman in sexual bondage is going to be offensive to all of: A) an awfully large proportion of the planet; B) A large proportion of the planet AND C) a non-trivial proportion of people in the world. (I have copied this discussion to Talk:Hogtie bondage). — Matt Crypto 16:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've replied on Talk:Hogtie bondage - Taxwoman 17:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "User freespeech" template

Helloo.. Saw your free speech thing and thought you might be interested in this template (which is also linked from the WikiProject talk page: {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

A link so you can preview it: {{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}}

Hope you like, it's pretty much the same but will also automatically add you to the Wikipedians against censorship category. :) --Mistress Selina Kyle 17:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)