Talk:Hogtie bondage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 October 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents 1 Images 1.1 Policy 2 Page 3 girl 3 Comment 4 An outsider's view 5 Here we go again..... 6 Male / female 7 The Whole Image Thing 8 MY TWO CENTS

[edit] Images

From Talk:Hogtie.

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. — Matt Crypto 16:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think Matt and I were on first name terms! I think it's quite evident that Matt's A, B and C are not equivalent propositions. As an accountant, I like to put numbers to things. A seems to me to suggest something very roughly in the region of 60% of the world, B maybe 25% and C maybe 1%. No doubt others will have different ideas. I am willing to accept C. I am not willing to accept B, still less A. If it's so evident, maybe Matt would adduce his evidence.
Taxwoman 16:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I'm the same person who complains about the nudity. Let me tell you how I happened to come across this page. I was looking for some articles about the torture forms used in the ancient time when I was unexpectedly directed to all those articles about sexual bondage. I was, and still am, offended by all those pictures showing scantly-clad, or even nude, women being tied up in different ways. I do NOT think that Matt has changed his ground. He is just using various ways to defend for his ideas, which I mostly share. As for Taxwoman, you're not going to like it, but I'm afraid I have to say that you are TOO subjective! I don't think there is any obligation for Matt to adduce evidence at all before it is impossible and unnecessary. It is ridiculous to organize a worldwide Gallup poll here. Normal people will naturally think that nudity is a kind of taboo, and I think that you, Taxwoman, are that 1% Matt mentioned about! Will you go around naked yourself, or do you find this behaviour socially acceptable? I think your answer is a definite NO! Then why do you consider it acceptable to have nude pictures on this encyclopedia website, which is supposed to be G-rated (Please refer to my discussion back on the page of "hogtie")?

Let me clarify one thing: I come to this page not because I am obsessed with the topic. If I were, I would probably agree more with Taxwoman. The fact is that I feel offended, and I come here repeatedly just to see how the discussion is going on. 22 October 2005 (Sorry to remain anonymous. I just don't feel like disclosing my personal information)

You can sign your messages while remaining anonymous. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce a time and IP name, which is already publically available. — Matt Crypto 18:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I would put the "proportion of people that would find a photograph of a nude woman in sexual bondage offensive" to be safely over 25%. Of course, many of those would be almost as offended by a photograph of a clothed woman in sexual bondage, but I don't think my original statements A, B, and C are particularly contentious. I'm really not being all that Victorian here, just pragmatic. If nudity is necessary for illustration, then, by all means, we should use it liberally. But if nudity is not necessary for the illustration, then we should steer well clear of it, simply because nudity is problematic for many readers: those who are offended; those who are reading in a public venue; children etc. — Matt Crypto 18:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies. Context matters. Clearly in the context of an article about bondage (which normally involves nudity) nude images are allowable and even appropriate. Please do not remove them on the grounds of "offensiveness" as that is not a valid reason to remove them from Wikipedia. If you feel the images do not contribute to the article, have problematic licensing, or other issues, please address those in your discussion. Removing them simply because they are "objectionable" or "offensive" is not appropriate, regardless of what percentage of the population shares that view. Kaldari 01:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I do NOT agree that bondage NORMALLY involves nudity. This is a highly subjective point of view. When this article first appeared on this site, it indicated that "hogtie" is a method used occasionally by the police force and more frequently by Mafia. Not everything here has to be related to sex, or even nudity! I am truly offended by the images, but if you insist that they stay as they are now, I at least suggest that a "WARNING" sign be added to the hyperlink, indicating that the article does contain explicit and objectionable materials, before the computer-users are directed to the article! 61.10.7.105 05:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is about Hogtie Bondage, not Hogties in general. I'm not sure you have a clear idea of what "bondage" refers to here. It does in fact typically involve nudity I'm afriad. Kaldari 15:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Kaldari, have you read my arguments at all, both here and on Talk:Hogtie? I have stressed repeatedly that I have NOT removed them simply because they are objectionable or offensive. — Matt Crypto 08:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your arguments, and they all revolve around the idea that the images are offensive. Perhaps your argument is convoluted rather than "simple", but it's still the same arguement. If you don't agree with wikipedia policies, don't argue about it here, go to the Wikipedia is not censored talk page and discuss it there. Your arguement that the images are not "necessary" is also problematic, as technically none of the images are "necessary". We don't judge images in Wikipedia on whether or not they are "necessary", but rather if they contribute to the article or not. If you want to remove images that aren't necessary, why do you choose the ones that include nudity? It's obviously because you feel these images need to be censored. Kaldari 15:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

My argument is that, if we include offensive images, then the images need to be of clear illustrative value. These nude images are not of clear illustrative value, given the clothed images we already have. That is not the same as wanting the removed simply because they are offensive. It's because they are offensive (to many) and are the nudity is not necessary to illustrate this topic. — Matt Crypto 16:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the images in question are of clear illustrative value given the context of the article. If the article only contained images of full-clothed people, I think it would be confusing and misleading. I'm curious, however, why you think one of the semi-nude images is acceptable for the article, but the other two aren't. One line of argument that I think would make more sense (policy-wise) is that the first two images are a bit redundant since they're quite similar. The image of the vertical hogtie seems especially useful for the article, as it would be difficult to visualize otherwise. Kaldari 19:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"Confusing and misleading"? How? "The person being bound may be... fully clothed, semi-clothed (i.e. lingerie), or completely naked." <- from the article itself. ~~ N (t/c) 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to there being images of hog-tied people at this page. They're relevant to the topic, and they're not obscene. I do think, however, that NPOV would be better served if instead of four pictures of hog-tied women there were two pictures of hog-tied women and two pictures of hog-tied men. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The "model in verticle hogtie.jpg" image illustrates a position described in the text and is therefore relevant. There is no rule that says an article can have to many images, so therefore the image can't be said to be excessive on these grounds, nor is it pointlessly placed here as it is illustrative and expands on concepts described. The only reason to remove it therefore, and in keeping with arguemnts listed here and on article "hogtie" is that the image in depecting nudity. To summerise:

• There is nothing wrong with having multiple pictures showing the same subject. This concept of encyclopedia is supposed to be illustrative, and there is no rule or guideline saying there can't be multiple images illustrating similar subject matters.
• The image is illustrating a specific and different position as described in the text, that differs from the normal definition of the position described and illustrated in the text.
• There is no censorship on Wikipedia, and Administrators should not be deleting images on these grounds as per the Wikipedia guideline for Administrators and for Wiki users in general.

--217.174.252.182 11:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You say that the "model in verticle hogtie.jpg" is illustrating a position described in the text. I think it's the other way round. The image was added, and then the text was added to describe the picture. I am skeptical that it's such a notable or common variation that it demands an illustration. Multiple pictures of the same thing are redundant. For example, there are two photos showing an elaborate hogtie; one with a nude model, and one without. There is very little essential difference between the two otherwise, just details like the type of gag etc. Therefore the nude photo has almost no additional illustrative value, and should be removed.

The origin and purpose of these photos is as bondage pornography. What makes for good erotica may not necessarily make for good illustration. We can illustrate exactly the same thing but without the nudity. And because nudity is offensive to many, then we should avoid it. — Matt Crypto 16:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll address each of your points in turn.

• The hogtie position when used in bondage can, and is, a very complex position that has many variations. As a person who partakes in bondage here in the UK both in a personal as well as a private professional basis I have many conversations with people on this very subject and there is a great degree of mis-understanding on it. Can the hogtie be vertical? Yes. Therefore should the text make mention of this? Well, are we try to cover what the bondage hogtie is so that a reader of this article will have a greater understanding of the subject? In fact, it doesn't even matter if the image WAS added first then the text was built aroud it - it still add to the greater understanding of the subject matter.

• Is it a notable common variation? This point in the guidelines is being used as either an excuse, or is being taken to a un-intended extreme. This article is about expanding human understanding on the subject. If it was being written for a printed encyclopedia then there are limitations on what can be put in to keep overall size down. However, Wikipedias intenstions are to be a "compendium of all human knowledge". It would seem that in the case here that it is almost all, but there are certain areas that that arn't important enough to show or discuss. An example in point. A person see an image of a person tied in this manner. They come to Wikipedia and have a look as they believe Wikipedia has all human knowledge. After looking they either find a small piece of text that maybe describes what they are looking for, or worse still no reference at all as it was deemed "not notable enough". The Wiki has therefore failed - why bother then. On the other hand, they search, find reference in text, and also an image showing the position. There answer has been found - another Wiki success story.

• Multiple images are redundant. Again, we are not trying to make this as small as possible. The wikipedia is a multimedia experence, therefore the more images the better. Every different image adds to better visual understanding of the subject, every different detail, every minor variation. There has been arguements here over and over again as to whether or not to show nudity and if nudity is required in bondage. By showing both images Wikipedia is demonstrating that this bondage position can involve both - you can been nude, your can be fully clothed. By the very arguement of asking if nudity is required we have demonstrated that there is a need to make clear that people can, and do, partake in this activity in both states of dress. It's illustrative value is in fact that it DOES depict nudity and a hogtie, the other images value is that it depects a fully dressed person and a hogtie.
  • Not every minor variation of illustration makes for good illustration. There's a point at which you can over-burden an article with images. — Matt Crypto 21:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• The reasoning that the images are bondage pornography is irrelevant. If you took a picture of a person tied right now and put it up, then it too is bondage pornography, which still irrelevant. Again I must make reference to the Wikipedia guidelines. The reference to the images being bondage pornography is a statement of fact, not an arguement, unless ones arguement is one of censorship. If you tie a person up as a sexual act (the purpose of this article, hence the split from the original article), and take a picture, it is pornography. If you draw a picture of it, it is porographic art. Your arguement demands the removal off all images in the entire bondage erotica area.

• I quote "And because nudity is offensive to many, then we should avoid it." Well, you can't start sentences with "and". Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood a little - this is a discussion, not an excuse to lay in to someone, and everyone here should remember this well. Getting back to the point, the statement made is in complete contradiction to many guidelines and concepts all relating to the censorship issure of Wikipedia. Here is a quote from the wikipedia guidelines:
  • You quote me out of context; the initial "and", despite being naff grammar, is a strong hint that something came before it, which was the sentence "we can illustrate exactly the same thing but without the nudity". I don't have a problem with potentially-objectionable and offensive content on Wikipedia, but it must be justifiable as being necessary for the article. — Matt Crypto 21:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social norms. While obviously inappropriate content (such as inappropriate links to shock sites) is usually removed immediately, except from an article directly concerning the content (such as the article about pornography), some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the state of Florida in the United States, where the servers are hosted."

Further on this, a quote from the discussions of the Project Wikipedians against sensorship:

" 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. "

I apologise for not just linking to the text - I think think anyone was actually bothering going and reading what was written there as the same arguments kept being made rather than the statements being refuted.

--217.174.252.182 21:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I hereby disclose that I am a citizen of the United States of America and live in that country. I am agnostic and in my twenties. My personal philosophy is quite progressive, but I recognize the need for moderation and compromise in real life; therefore, my practical philosophy is quite centrist. I am not personally offended by the images in this article, but I feel that the ones with implied or actual nudity aren't absolutely necessary for the purposes of this article. By "absolutely necessary" I mean that the images are benficial enough to offset most potential grievances.

Lets look at the pros and cons of each image. Assuming we are being honest and realistic in our claims, the final tally should tell us whether or not the images are worthwhile. I understand that this may sound very naive and that my tally will probably leave some things out, but I believe it is a start. If there are more pros than cons, I think the image should stay where it is. If there's a tie, I think that we should temporarily move the image "below the fold" or create a link with no thumbnail. If there are more cons than pros, I think we should remove the image and look for a replacement.

Model_in_classic_Hogtie.jpg

Pro	Con
The image provides a clear illustration of the "classic hogtie."	Because the article references a sexual fetish, the implied nudity may be seen as an attempt to sexually arouse viewers and include them in the fantasy (potentially against their wishes).
The implied nudity demonstrates the way in which such bondage can be sexual.	It's unclear whether or not the images accompanying the article must convince viewers that the practice can be sexual.
The image's postion, while prominent, may be acceptable given that the article's title should prepare viewers for images of sexual bondage (MY OPINION).	The images position "above the fold" takes away from the viewers the choice not to see the image.
The image is (TO MY KNOWLEDGE) the least offensive image on Wikipedia's servers to clearly illustrate a classic BDSM hogtie.	no comment

Model_in_bondage.jpg

Pro	Con
The image shows how it looks when a hogtied person rolls on there side.	Because the article references a sexual fetish, the nudity may be seen as an attempt to sexually arouse viewers and include them in the fantasy (potentially against their wishes).
The nudity and look of the model demonstrate the way in which such bondage can be sexual.	It's unclear whether or not the images accompanying the article must convince viewers that the practice can be sexual.
The image's postion is "below the fold" thus giving viewers a choice not to see it.	no comment
no comment	The image shows an act that does not require illustration (rolling to one's side).
no comment	The image partially obscures the ropework.

That's all I can think of for now. Please edit the lists if you think it will prove useful in resolving this matter. Supergyro2k 22:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a Pro for Model_in_classic_Bondage.jpg. Supergyro2k 19:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy

Apologies if this point has already been made, but note Wikipedia:Profanity#Shocking_images. "Avoid images that could be considered shocking by typical Wikipedia readers, but again, not at the expense of accuracy." Ergo, since nudity is not necessary to illustrate this subject, and a non-nude image exists, we should use the non-nude image because it's less shocking. I personally don't care, but I think people are more likely to think of Wikipedia as "professional" if it doesn't contain unnecessary nudity. ~~ N (t/c) 19:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, having examined further... using the current placement of image on the page, #2, #3, and #4 all illustrate different forms, but #1 is the exact same form as #2. Hence, it and #2 are interchangable, hence we should use the less shocking one. Besides, due to image size & the amount of visible skin, #1 is more shocking than #3 or #4. ~~ N (t/c) 19:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia:Profanity#Shocking_images is not a policy. It is a tentative guideline. Guidelines are supposed to be illustrative, while policies are prescriptive. Regarding your specific critique of Image #1 (regular hogtie, mostly nude), I pretty much agree with you. As the first two images are virtually the same, I don't see any harm in choosing one or the other rather than using both. Kaldari 19:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If a choice had to be made between Image #1 and Image #2, the first should be used because, even though it is nudity, it does show the more accurate hogtie (wrists to ankles). If that image was removed in preference to the second, there would be no images on the hogtie bondage page actually showing the primary form of hogtie (wrist to ankle), just variations on the hogtie. --61.9.150.1 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As the current explanation for rejection of Image #1 is that it is simply doubling up on what is already shown in Image #2, may I make the suggestion that Image #1 better shows the concepts in the article, more accuratly shows a "hogtie" in the true sence, and with Image #2 already being used on the hogtie article it is doubling by using it here. I agree with the previous writer, the article as it stands now with Image #1 removed now has no pictures on it showing a standard hogtie, ie. wrists to ankles. All the other images on the article are secondary to this one in the depection of the core subject. With regards to Wikipedia looking more professional, Wikipedias mission is not to be a replacment or an improvment over existing encyclopedia, but rather a completly new and fluid concept - the compendium of all human knowledge. I would think Wikipedia would be more "professional" if it diplayed images and contained text that was accurate and true and without fear or favor. Anything and everything here should be looked at with only, and strictly only, two points of issue. Is it relevant, and is it correct. All other issues, such as is it tastefull, are secondary to the main two issues. If an article and / or picture conforms to the first two points, then there is no problem with it. Time and again writers here are stating reasons of relevance, or that the images are doubling up on the same concept, but them slip in a reference to the image showing nudity - "Oh and because this one shows a bit of skin.....". The question that should be asked between the two images is "Which image correctly shows the concept in the article". Ask yourself this. Read the article, view the images, which correctly describes a classic hogtie. Nudity is irrelevant. I would like someone to write hear and provide a serious arguement as to why the clothed image better shows a hogtie than the semi-naked image. I don't want to hear about nudity again, and if you do want to talk about nudity again then please read through the entire discussion here, and all the Wikipedia disscussion boards concerning censorship, and provide all your arguements in rebuttle to these statements. Maybe the writer of the article may consider replacing both images with one that is more acceptable to all, but until that happenes the better descriptive image should be used.

--217.174.252.182 00:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the semi-nude, sexually oriented images are gratuitous and offensive. They should be deleted. If, however, the prevailing consensus is that the images should remain, then I must insist that such photos also include images of men similarly helplessly hogtied. This is just trash -- and sexist trash at that. deeceevoice 07:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I just can't believe how bigoted some people can be!! They look at bondage and just decide that is sexist, it's trash, it's offensive. Let me tell you something mister, I'm FEMALE and I LIKE being tied up and I can tell you that I, like many other women, enjoy doing this. We like being tied up, just like many men also like being tied up. I didn't feel that my human rights were being violated, I was HAVING FUN! I am so glad now that there are places like Wikipedia where these subjects can be shown and discussed with out opinion. When I was growing up I had an interest in bondage from my early teens, but I though it was just me. My parents caught me one day playing some self-bondage games and took me down to the shrink. I was embarrassed and humiliated and made to feel like I was sick in the head. Now I know different. Now I know that many MANY others share my interests. Wikipedia should say it like it is, and bigoted bastards like you should stop pushing your opinions onto others and making them feel like there is something wrong with them. Yeah, sure, the images offend you, that's your right, but how would it make you feel if I said that you skin colour offended me? It would make you angry and you would call me everything I have called you. Try putting yourself in other people’s shoes before you start mouthing off. As for pictures of men, KNOW ONE IS STOPPING SUCH PICTURES FROM BEING PUT HERE, so how about everyone who keeps saying this PUT UP OR SHUT UP. --203.51.155.233 08:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you said my skin color offended you, I'd assume you had a serious problem. If I allowed such opinions to rile me the way my opinion has so obviously outdone you, then I would need a shrink. (Perhaps you should return to the analyst's couch for a session or two on anger management. :p) And, no. I don't engage in name calling. It's puerile and counterproductive. Grow up. Furthermore, I am not a "mister." I am a woman and a feminist. Get over yourself. It's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.  :p deeceevoice 09:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So do you think any women should be pictured here at all? If not, isn't that censorship? If we do have equal representation, with one pic of a male and one of a female wouldn't that be deemed to be redundant by others here, with one of the images then being deleted. If the picture is of a dressed female and a naked male in the same position, would it be the one depicting nudity that would be deleted? --203.51.153.227 09:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

My primary objection is the extent to which such images might be construed as the victimization/tortue of women -- which is a common enough theme with such images and with the practice itself. After all, the BTK killer was a bondage freak -- though I'm not certain if he bound his victims in precisely this manner. Presumably and hopefully, the article at least mentions the abusive/S&M aspects of bondage, with appropriate links to relevant articles elsewhere. (I don't know if the article treats such matters; I haven't read it. It's not a particular interest of mine, but the issue of the photos appeared in the wiki e-mail list.)

"TMI!" to User 203.... I really don't care what your sexual preferences are, or to hear tales of your childhood traumas/issues. If you wanna get your freak on, hey, whatever does it fuyyah. But there are three photos -- all of which show women. A little balance would help. If the article must contain such photos, then there also should be at least one photo of a male. And, no. I find such images distasteful, so I'll not be hunting one up, thank you very much. I visited the home page of the website in the link and decided to go no further. I found it distasteful/repugnant, and there is a limit to what I'll do for the "cause." And I have better things to do with my time. I'll leave the task of hunting down a hogtied male to others so inclined. Peace.deeceevoice 12:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the previous two contributors need to be careful to make sure this discussion doesn't degenerate down into a person attack on each other. Both users have over stepped the mark and I should point out that personal attacks are the last defence for a person who has run out of arguments. Deeceevoice makes a valid point in reference to crimes involving bondage, however I'm not sure how exactly one would go about linking this subject with the examination of hardcore bondage, torture, and shock sites, publications, video media, and cultural beliefs. While I do agree with most points made by this user, I do disagree with the implication that the BTK killer was into bondage, ergo, anyone interested in bondage has similar physiological tendencies. This is a rather specious argument to make and can be likened to suggesting that people who watch action movies all the time have violent tendencies - something that has been disproved on many occasions why phycologists and is very much a generalisation. The article does, and must, only make statements of fact. It provides no opinions on whether or not women or men "like" doing it, nor does it give suggestions to the number of people in the population who do. It explains what a hogtie is in the context of an activity which is referred to as bondage and practised by an unknown number of people on this planet. While it might seem to be a good idea to make the article an opinion on the merits of bondage in general, it would fall out of the scope of what Wikipedia is all about, and any such edits would be removed. If wikipedia is to work, people need to be tolerant of all articles (as long as they state facts and only facts), no matter how distasteful they find the subject matter. Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. There are plenty of places to vent ones opinion, this discussion page included, but the articles should only display facts. --61.9.150.1 14:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hold up just one minute! There's absolutely nothing I've written here that could be construed by any reasonable person as a personal attack. I haven't overstepped jack. However, your "caution" is already too late for the anonymous contributor. You can't paint me with that brush. I've responded to the anonymous editor's somewhat over-the-top bitchiness with some gentle chiding. Nothing more. I don't take it seriously enough to get my back up about it, but I'm not going to ignore it, either. It might be helpful to reread my response again sans the presumption of hostility on my part, taking note of the way I ended the post. (Duh.)

Further, nowhere do I make the "specious argument" and nowhere do I even imply that bondage for kinky pleasure is the same as the kind of sick, sadistic s**t practiced by the BTK killer. No. I'm not into bondage; I find it repugnant. But I'm not a prude, and I certainly have common sense. Please don't insult my intelligence with inaccurate assumptions. When I suggested article content with applicable links, I'm was writing about a brief mention of the issue with a wiki link to, presumably, an already-extant general article on bondage (we'll see if the link shows blue) -- not some hardcore, S&M site -- in the interest of producing a well-rounded article. So, save your preachy admonitions about how we should comport ourselves "if wikipedia is to work" and be about "facts, not opinions," for those who are in need of it -- after you carefully have read user contributions without inferring a backwardness/ignorance that clearly is not there. Frankly, if it doesn't already do so, I think the/a related article on bondage would benefit from a knowledgeable treatment (with appropriate references) of the psychosexual nature of bondage and gratification/titillation in both its healthy and pathological/sociopathic/psychopathic forms. And why the hell not? It is precisely the kind of information that should be in Wikipedia -- if it isn't already. And I see no problem whatsoever with a brief mention of the issues here with appropriate links. deeceevoice 14:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

When you said "After all, the BTK killer was a bondage freak -- though I'm not certain if he bound his victims in precisely this manner.", what exactly was the point your were trying to make?

Precisely what I stated. "My primary objection is the extent to which such images might be construed as the victimization/tortue of women -- which is a common enough theme with such images and with the practice itself. After all, the BTK killer was a bondage freak -- though I'm not certain if he bound his victims in precisely this manner." What about this is ambiguous? It is why I suggested the inclusion of a male in bondage -- for balance -- to avoid the of impression of female victimization. deeceevoice 00:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Further, when you said "Perhaps you should return to the analyst's couch for a session or two on anger management. :p" to a person you has already stated that they had to see a shrink and it made them feel humiliated, wouldn't this have been interpreted as hurtfull to them? --61.9.148.240 23:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The user has already stated she's grown to understand she wasn't deranged because of her interest in bondage. My comment was precisely what it appears to be -- a tongue-in-cheek reference to her anger management issues, as clearly evidenced by her intemperate remarks. (Duh.) And before you castigate me for not holding the anonymous editor's hand and sympathizing with her over her tortured childhood, keep in mind that I am not obliged to go out of my way to play "poor dear" when someone steps to me with disrespect. Under the circumstances, she got off easy. I'm done with this. It's not a subject that interests me. I've said what I meant to say -- nothing more, nothing less. Twice. Take it or leave it. I'm out. deeceevoice 00:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that in the interest of balance (not for POV reasons, but just to show variety) there should be images of men and women. There's no reason to call this simple suggestion sexist or prudish or anything of the sort. I do wish, though, that deeceevoice wouldn't have brought up the BTK killer (I can't imagine what that was meant to accomplish), and I wish everyone involved would read the whole article so as to get the context of this discussion. The article already links to sexual bondage, which already mentions psychological aspects (the "Why bondage" section). ~~ N (t/c) 23:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page 3 girl

Has Crypto ever looked at the article Page 3 girl? This shows bare breasts and is surely considerably more offensive to those objecting to nudity than anything in this article. Furthermore, it is entirely gratuitous; even those who have never seen a Sun page 3 need little imagination to guess what a picture of a topless girl looks like, whereas the photos here do illustrate some rather complex concepts. Will Crypto delete the photo in that article? If not, why not? - 81.153.43.82 10:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't known about that "Page 3 girl" article until you told me. I think that is BY ALL MEANS obscene! That you can quote one image that Matt has not referred to does not mean that the images on this article are not objectionable! (In my opinion, that "Page 3 girl" image has to be deleted as well!) That's why I suggest that (if those nude images have to stay) at least a "WARNING" be added before the viewers are directed to this article. A simple statement on the link from "hogtie" to "BDSM hogtie" explaining that the article contains some explicit materials will be OK. What do you think? 222.166.160.225 15:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I see someone's removed it, and a good thing too. I have no doubt that it was far more obscene than anything in this article. And User:61.10.7.221 - it isn't Wiki etiquette to insert something in an existing comment without signing it. Taxwoman 16:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the image on Page 3 girl probably wasn't appropriate. First of all it's not a subject that benefits significantly from illustration. Secondly the image was commercial and probably didn't have proper licensing to use on Wikipedia. The images in this article, although commercial, were apparently donated under the GFDL by the owner to Wikipedia. Kaldari 19:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the situation in Page 3 girl is a little different, even without the copyvio issue. I agree with you that a hogtie is a subject that does need illustration, particularly when describing elaborate variations such as shown on this page. I just don't think nudity is necessary to illustrate these complex positions. In addition, topless nudity is a strong feature of the page 3 girl, whereas it is not an essential feature of hogtie bondage. — Matt Crypto 17:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure the situation in Page 3 girl is a little different. The photos here are helpful, especially the one with the vertical hogtie. Maybe it would be better to have clothed models, but unless and until someone provides such photos, these are the best we've got. The page 3 photo, on the other hand, is 100% gratuitous. How many people need a picture to tell them what a topless girl looks like? And there was a clear view of her breasts, which there isn't here. Crypyo would have been better employed getting rid of that photo than wasting everyone's time here - though now someone else has done it. - 213.187.48.246 18:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I had a quick comment. While the article says "The person being bound may be either male or female," all three pictures on the page are of women. Perhaps that is because we can't find pictures of males in these bondage positions. However, including only pictures of women to illustrate these poses further contributes to the stereotype of "heterosexual BDSM is a male dominant and female submissive," as described on BDSM. (or perhaps these women are lesbians, but I don't think that is the assumption that will be made). I suggest finding pictures of men for at a least one of the poses to make the article more balanced. This is also a problem at Bondage (BDSM).--Kewp (t) 08:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Precisely my point. deeceevoice 11:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this as well, and this has been my impression of most of wikipedia's fetish related pages, and I think is related to all of the arguments above: These articles look more like typical male-viewed fetish-porn than they do illustrations of common people who participate in the fetish. I agree with some of those above in saying that the page should not look like porn, but - perhaps surprisingly - I think that the nakedness is necessary. It does not make sense as illustration to show all clothed people, and then insist that if readers want to know what this looks like naked they should just imagine the picture without clothes. That would be like showing the WTC in New York, fully in tact, and avoiding any depiction of those towers exploding for fear of emotions that it would elicite. The same arguement could follow: It is not necessary to show the towers falling, as long as their destruction is described in the article. This would be true, except that images tell you a lot more information than can easily be described in words, even when those words are aided by an image that is similar to what you are describing.

I apologize for basically joining the argument above without really joining it, but I think it is related to the point brought up in this section. I think that the article should feature at least one man in bondage, and, if possible, at least on person who does not have a picture-perfect body, and, at least one naked person, as it does now (I could care less whether a clothed person is shown at all, I just don't think that is a typical form of bondage). Now, obtaining these images is the difficult part... Cesoid 04:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite right - obtaining the sort of images that people want is very difficult. I can add from personal experience that if you are in a contorted position such as a stringent hogtie, clothing can often get very uncomfortable. Even a bra strap can dig in painfully. I'd far sooner be in the nude. --Taxwoman 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An outsider's view

I don't care strongly about this one way or another. My first impression was to prefer the clothed picture (it just looks better to me and the nudity seems slightly gratuitous) but then it occurred to me that the nude picture may be slightly more illustrative in that it shows the effect of the bondage on the blood-flow of the model. Obviously, this is not an overriding consideration. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 19:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. The nude image better illustrates the stress such a position imposes on the body. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 06:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Still the same old discussion: only if nudity is absolutely necessary! Obviously it is not. Read the previous discussions.137.189.4.1 04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Why absolutely necessary? Merely benifical (like this one clearly is) ought to be enough. Mathmo 02:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And, as I say above, nudity is highly beneficial from the point of view of comfort of the model! --Taxwoman 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is only your point of view! Nudity is more comfortable for the model? I doubt it. The ropes directly contacting the skin can cause bleeding when the bondage victim struggles. Can bleeding be comfortable? Clothes bondage somehow reduces the risk of skin damage.218.254.187.44 06:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Heavens above! Bleeding when the bondage victim struggles? What sort of sadistic or incompetent people have been tying you up? Don't go near them again. It is difficult to avoid some chafing to the wrists if the bound person struggles enough, though not bleeding. However, how exactly do clothes protect your wrists when you are tied, or do you wear long gloves? At the risk of being accused of offering to do original reaearch, I am happy to tie you up both in the nude and dressed, and ask you to decide which is more comfortable.--Taxwoman 11:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. So chafing is not a kind of damage. How ridiculous. I tried that and I've found that tying on the clothing never damages my skin. I don't need to be tested by you. I trust myself. Don't pretend to be the sole expert. Not everyone has to agree with you. That's all.218.254.187.44 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely the question is how well the picture illustrates the concept being discussed. This article is not about the position per se (for which, see hogtie), but about the bondage practices associated with it. The question, therefore, is not whether it's more comfortable with or without clothing, but which is more representative for hogtie bondage. Yes, it can be done clothed, but the overriding motivation is sexual, and for that reason, a state of undress is typical. --Hogtied 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not typical in my opinion. Many people, as far as what I can find on the web, prefer clothed bondage, and the motivation is still sexual!218.254.187.44 14:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any citations for that? "As far as I can find on the web" is a pretty vague commendation. --Hogtied 16:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

218.254.187.44 seems to have changed his/her argument. He starts by denying that nudity is more comfortable, and on the contrary argues that you have to wear clothes or you might start bleeding when you struggle. Then he drops the bleeding argument and says that chafing is bad (true, but mainly occurring on the wrists so the nudity argument is irrelevant). Now he's arguing that web searches show nude bondage is not typical.--Taxwoman 11:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How is the argument changed, may I ask? He sticks to the same point from the beginning to the end. From what you have just written, it seems that you understand his argument thoroughly!! Nudity is NOT comfortable because bleeding is NOT comfortable, NEITHER is chafing. Clothes bondage is good because all these risks are reduced. He is making responses correspondingly. It is perfectly true that not all websites about bondage are associated with nudity. I am on his side, because I only like going to those websites about clothes bondage. GABTU, BoundGuys, CapturedGuys, BareFootBound, just to name a few.137.189.4.1 10:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But if someone starts bleeding, it is because the binder is sadistic or grossly incompetent. And as I said, the only place that might get chafed is the wrists, so wearing clothes (except possibly long gloves) is of no help.--Taxwoman 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference?! Nobody is doing anything about this page, even though there has been SO MUCH disagreement about using nude female models! Those problematic pics are never removed or replaced, and worse still, one more OBSCENE picture showing the woman's breasts from the front view is added! What's the point of all the discussion going on here? This page is simply dominated by a few who take for granted that they are right, and who shun off any other opinions!137.189.4.1 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the comfortableness of being bound while naked is a matter of personal opinion and cannot be argued one way or the other. Also, I added a Pros and Cons table to the "Images" section of this discussion page. Feel free to play around with it. Supergyro2k 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Want a bet? Even if we can list more cons than pros, the pictures are still going to stay here because those who put up the pictures are too arrogant to accept different opinions or even to admit that they do not hold the truth in their hands! Instead of seeing those obscene pictures showing nude models being removed, we will only see even more pictures of such kind being uploaded here! Those who have uploaded the obscene pictures are just too self-indulgent.137.189.4.1 15:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on the motivations of those who would like to keep the images in question, and I think such motivations are irrelevant. Wikipedia is user-edited, and you and I are both users. We can edit the article if we choose.Supergyro2k 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Pros and Cons table I added to the "Images" section provides a basis for moving Model_in_classic_Hogtie.jpg below the fold and removing Model_in_bondage.jpg entirely. I have done this and personally find that it enhances the article. One benefit of this move I hadn't anticipated is that now a viewer, who is unfamiliar with this subject, can see "sexual bondage" written in the opening sentence without having to unwittingly see actual sexual bondage. Sorry to those who liked Model_in_bondage.jpg, but I ended up with more Cons than Pros for it.Supergyro2k 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again.....

The article stood as it was, with very little change for almost a year. The picture that was added recently was unneccessary and has seemingly only had the result of sparking off this debate yet again. With the original three images, the article sat, with people looking at it, and the world didn't come to an end. Yes, the images are indeed offensive to many people, and many people may also get off on the images, but the article itself is also just as offensive to many people. In some countries on this earth, just having the text of the article on your computer would find you in serious trouble. My point is, if one is to alter, move, or remove images simply because they are offensive, then the article itself should also be altered, moved, removed for the same arguements. Indeed, there are many bondage related articles that these same issues apply to, and many many hundreds more related to sexuality as a whole which depict "pornographic" images. The judgement that needs to be made here is whether or not the image is in context, and so far no alternative image was ever provided that better illustrated the concept. As for moving the image down to save the viewer, I'm looking at the article on an LCD at 1280x1024 and the image is right there - I don't need to scroll down to see it, so it just makes the article look un-professional and childish now. Oh, and a 17in 1280x1024 LCD is the most common size screen bundled with PC systems at this current time so don't even bother with that arguement. Finally, as for the shock value, and whether the image is shocking for viewers, the subject is "HOGTIE BONDAGE", no come on, don't even begin to suggest that someone can come across this page by mistake. People are here to read an article about hogtie bondage and that exactly what they got. The only other kind of person who would be seeking out this article would be someone on an anti-bondage crusade, and of course such images would be offensive to them. The feminest movement has been on such very vocal critic of bondage in general and their campaigns against the H.O.M. magazines is legendary. So it's not supprising that there are anonymous people who "stumbled" across the page and found it shocking. With regards to shocking pictures, this images shows no more than what one is often confronted with in the average music video clip these days, and what I am inflicted with in spam emails - something I DON'T seek out or ask for, are far far more offensive. So if it's about saving people from the shock, I'm afraid you really are fiddling around the edges. Leave the article as it is, leave it alone. It's balanced, and it's right for those who are seeking this information, and for those who arn't I ask, why on earth did you type in hogtie bondage?--139.168.56.69 00:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone maintain that any images in this article are so grossly offensive that they should not be on Wikipedia at all? If so, the correct procedure is to refer those images to WP:IfD. If they do not deserve deletion, then it is impossible to say that they must not appear in an article that clearly by its name advertises its nature. Each image here makes a different point, and I feel that removing any of them worsens the article.--Taxwoman 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Taxwoman, I don't find any of these images to be offensive; however, I do find Model_in_Bondage.jpg to be unecessary. What "point" does the image of the half-naked woman on her side make? To me that image seems to be illustrating what it looks like when a person in a hogtie has rolled on their side. If that is the purpose of the image, then I think it is unecessary. Is it really so difficult to imagine the action of rolling to one's side? Or am I missing something? Does Model_in_Bondage.jpg illustrate something the other images don't?Supergyro2k 04:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To the user with IP address 139.168.56.69, I will try to address your comments. First, I disagree with your statement that the editing of a potentially offensive image should go hand-in-hand with the editing of the article, to which it belongs. I believe that images (at least in the U.S.) are not held to the same standard as text. For example, the Wikipedia article Decapitation has an opening sentence that describes the act of beheading. What if a number of people were upset to see, floating next to the sentence, a photo of an actual beheading instead of the painting that depicts one? By your apparent reasoning, the whole sentence would have to be scrapped, and that sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Second, I'm not sure I agree with the idea that we judge images by looking at their context. I'm not an expert on any of Wikipedia's policies, but I always thought images were to be used when they provided a better illustration than the text of an article alone could. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Third, I agree that my moving of the potentially offending image below the fold was hasty; I should have checked the finished edit on many different monitors. I'm still green when it comes to Wiki editing; however, I sense that you're implying that a move "below the fold" is futile given the wide range of monitor sizes and available resolutions. You said that 17" LCD monitors set with a 1280 X 1024 resolution is the most common, so why couldn't we just move the image further down? I'm not suggesting we do so but just pointing out that my failure doesn't have to spell the end for all future edits to that image's position. Also, can you explain how the article looked "un-professional and childish" after my edits?

I laughed when you brought up the shock value of the image and how viewers should expect such content on an article with this title. I laughed because I made the same point in the Pro column for the image showing nudity (see the "Images" section of this discussion page). But I clearly labeled that thought as my opinion whereas you claim to downright know the motivations of this article's viewers. I'm not going to tell you how to think, but I personally try to avoid making any claims about unknown variables. I don't think we can say with 100% certainty what anyone is thinking. Just so you know, I actually did come to this article expecting to see bondage but not necessarily implied or actual nudity. While it doesn't bother me, I think it does put a hole in your hypothesis.

In conclusion, I still think the image showing the model on her side should be removed for the reasons I provided in my post on October 22 2006. I reached a tie on my Pros and Cons list for the first image, and that's why I moved it. Sorry if I was too hasty, but why didn't you just edit my Pros and Cons list like I suggested? I'm not trying to be snippy, just curious.

Supergyro2k 04:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To Supergyro2k, I've read your comments, and let me say first of all I totally agree with your points regarding the naked image. It does serve no purpose or add anything to the article and I do believe it should be removed.

Firstly, Comparing an article describing Decapitation to one describing the use of bondage as a sexual act is comparing apples to oranges. If one was simply talking about whether an article was shocking or offensive to a user, then yes they could be compared, but this was not the point I was making. It was suggested that the images would be offensive for their sexual nature, and it was this context that I used when describing the text as well. If a person was offended by the sexual nature of an image, then they would equally be offended by the sexual nature of the descriptions of the test. I accept this is a gross generalisation, but I feel you would be pretty hard pressed to find a person whom had a genuine interest in the subject and nature of bondage, but who would then find an image - which may I point out again shows no more than the average music video clip these days - as being offensive. There is no frontal nudity in the image, and I saw more exposed ass cheek on a documentary about Brazil on the Discovery Channel on the weekend. Oh and BTW, there was no preceding warning either, strange given the channel is used by some school as a learning aid. This, of course, does not include the side hogtie image, which is not necessary for the article and I agree should be removed.

The describing of the hogtie position is quite difficult, and while the article does a very good job of it, a person who has never seen the actual position would still have to rely on their imagination to try to understand the position. Given that this is a multimedia medium, it would seem a little silly to not have an image actually SHOWING the position to complement the text. The articles purpose is to educate, and that should be done using whatever means and tools that are available, without reservation but with moderation, thus excluding once again the un-necessary side image which adds no more to the article.

I'm sorry if my comments came across as a personal attack or insult against you: that was not my intention. This is simply a discussion forum and isn't the place for un-necessary personal attacks. The point I was making with the image placement is that simply moving it down the page won't deal with any issue with seeing the image when the page opens, and even if moved down further, we can't envisage how screens will evolve over time. There are still available A4 ration screens, and if these were used the entire page would be viewable in one it. Resolutions are also constantly on the rise. The issue here would be that if we are going to move the image down, then we would need to keep checking back to make sure it is low enough on the page. My point about it looking un-professional wasn't in relation to your editing skills, but rather that a person looking at the page for the first time might get the impression that the image looked pushed down to far on the page, and lacked a balanced look. The page just looked very rough as a result. I know it's a very subjective point to make, but surely we are trying to make Wikipedia look at least a little professional, and last time I looked at a purchased encyclopaedia there weren’t large gaps everywhere.

I didn't specifically say to know what the motivations of all viewers of this article were to be. Arguing the semantics of the syntax of my sentences seems rather silly. If I was doing such a thing, then I would have said “I know for a fact that this is why anyone would be looking at this article”. I didn’t say that, so stop trying to find implied meaning in what I was saying. What I said was “People are here to read an article about hogtie bondage and that exactly what they got.” Now if one wants to argue the semantics of what I said, I could have said, “On the balance of things, one might draw the opinion that the majority of people are here to read an article about hogtie bondage and that exactly what they got.” It’s this sort of game playing that keeps lawyers in business, making sure that every word and syntax is exactly right. How about we try this as a rule, if I meant it, I would SAY it. If I claim to “downright know” the motivations of the article’s viewers, I would have preceded the sentence, “I DOWNRIGHT KNOW THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE ARTICLE’S VIEWER’S, and.......” This, however, wasn't the point I was making there, so I will make it again, but a different way. Why must this article be the starting point for the removal of what SOME people may call an offensive image? There are MANY other articles on Wikipedia with far more offensive nudity and have far less context to the article, but it is this image that needs to be moved down the page to save someone who did a search for hogtie bondage and found and image showing hogtie bondage - gee how surprising. There are music videos being showed in children’s time slots on television, showing women dressed just as little as in the image, but also "gyrating" around suggestively, but an article that is clearly labelled and would have to be seeked out is the problem. Spam emails showing actual intercourse with the caption "is you Penis large enough" arrives in the inbox’s of almost every email user on earth now, but we can't have an image that shows no actual nudity at the top of a page about the sexual use of bondage. I watch a travel documentary about Brazil and see a lingering shot of two women walking down the beach wearing nothing more than a bit of string and that’s fine, but add some ropes and put them into an article describing bondage and that just not on.

I didn’t edit your Pro's and con's list, because all these arguments have already been had. This has been going on for over a year now, both this article and the original article labelled "hogtie" only. The reason why this article was spun off under the heading "hogtie bondage" was so that a person researching the subject of the hogtie wouldn't come across such images. There's plenty more discussion still on the page from before the articles split. The article reached a consensus, minus the side nudity image, that everyone was happy with. What I don't want is for people to come along who didn't go through that process that went on for months and involved Admin's and discussion of wiki policy, etc, etc, just deciding to edit the page again and move stuff around. I know that's the whole point of Wiki, but the problem is that the entire discussion needs to be had, and a consensus reached, not unilateral action - we all know where that gets us!

I say remove the full nudity side image, leave the rest as it is. It is a sensible compromise. We aren’t going to be able to make everyone happy, but what we mustn’t do it damage the article to the detriment of those wanting to read about the subject matter, just in case someone may be offended. People will be offended by the image; I have no doubts about that at all. Some will also be offended by the subject matter of the article. The article however doesn't set out "to offend". It sets out to educate. --139.168.56.69 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To the user with IP address 139.168.56.69, I would like to apologize for putting words in your mouth. I interpreted one of your arguments as stating that only people who want to see this material read this article, and anyone reading the article who doesn't want to see this material is against bondage. From this interpretation, I came to the conclusion that you were either being sarcastic, hyperbolic or were honestly claiming that only two types of people view this article. I didn't pick up any sarcasm or overstatement in the tone of your writing, so I assumed you meant your words to come across exactly as they were written. I was mistaken, and I'm sorry.

Concerning my Decapitation example, I did think you were making a general statement about shocking or offensive material. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I had read/skimmed through much of this discussion page before weighing in, but I wasn't aware that this page was created as a solution to a prior conflict. That's more egg on my face. My Pros & Cons table was created primarily to provided a basis for any edits that I might've made; critics could then quickly see how I arrived at my conclusions. One problem I had while reading/skimming through this page was that the different arguments were not clearly structured in a way that facilitates critical analysis.

I agree that an image of the classic hogtie is necessary, and there's no denying that the current image does the job. However, since the Pros & Cons were tied on that one, I was still on the fence about where it belongs in the article. I have edited the Pros & Cons table to state that Model_in_classic_Bondage.jpg is, to my knowledge, the least offensive image available on Wikipedia that clearly shows a classic BDSM hogtie . Also,I'm glad we're in agreement on Model_in_Bondage.jpg. I'd like to see it removed eventually, but I can wait. Supergyro2k 18:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow all of that. There isn't anything offensive about the images at all. They look realistic and represent the article subject quite well. As far as I can tell there is no reason to believe that it would fit the Miller rule, and so it is more a personal issue from one reader to the next. I say just leave all of the pictures and let people who are offended by something as vanilla as this go read a different article. Atom 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

First Atom, what are you referencing when you say, "all of that?" I respect that you don't find anything offensive about these images--neither do I. However, the issue here (as far as I can tell) isn't one of realism or accurate representation. Those are important considerations in general, but what needs to be determined here is whether or not the images are necessary or antagonistic. "As far as you can tell" the images should remain, but that is your personanl opinion. I think it's important for people viewing articles on Wikipedia to understand that censorship on the basis of offensiveness alone is impractical. At the same time, people editing and creating articles on Wikipedia should respect the wide-ranging sensibilities of their potential audience. The changes I proposed were based on my Pros & Cons table in the "Images" section of this discussion page. In it I tried to come up with Pros and Cons that demonstrated an understanding of the balance between necessity, usefulness and offensiveness. Supergyro2k 20:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"All of that" was a two page mass of text discussing the images. Yes, I was offering my opinion. But, we don;t censore image son Wikipedia. The key is whether the pictures offer something to the article and add quality to the article. If some one or two people are offended by, well who knows, by something about the image, they should go elsewhere. If there is an editorial reason for the image to be there, and it does not violate the law, then a given image should remain.

If "wide-ranging sensibilities" is the issue, then you should look at and contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. We don't censor because someone may have an objection to an image. If there is no reason for the image to be there, or it does not add anything meaningful to the article, it should be removed.Atom 22:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point has been taken; I will look into the image guidelines as you suggest. I know we don't have to remove images if someone objects, but in the name of maintaining a curteous and polite Wikipedia community, can't we at least be willing to replace certain images if a suitable, non-objectionable, replacement were found. I don't see censorship as the issue but respect. If we all remain open to the possibility of change, then those of us who disagree with the majority can reasonably expect to be listened to and treated fairly. Now, I understand this isn't supposed to be a forum for expressing personal philosophies, so I'll stop this back-and-forth commenting before I end up going into a full blown rant.

Atom, you said that an image that doesn't add anything meaningful should be removed. What do you think of Model_in_Bondage.jpg, which shows the hogtied model on her side? Supergyro2k 23:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From the guidelines:

• When possible, avoid images that are likely to offend
• Use only the image that best illustrates the point
• Additional images should add additional information
• Existing images shouldn't be replaced without a consensus

Looking at these images, I don't see anything likely to offend. The only possibility would be that one image shows a breast, but that isn't anything offensive or prurient. Nudity is not erotic or pornographic in and of itself. Each of the images illustrates a point made in the article, I think including the "Model_in_Bondage.jpg" image. I think a case could possibly be made for it not being necessary, but it seems okay to me. If we found other images that were suitable and non-objectionable, then the editorial decision would be based on which image best illustrated the point. It's always a judgment call of some kind.

Atom 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a photograph of a hogtied nude women is likely to offend many people -- remember, the intended original purpose of these images was as pornography. Further, I don't think "Model_in_Bondage.jpg" adds anything to the article in illustrative terms that isn't covered by other images. — Matt Crypto 13:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting to hear that perspective. Are you sure that it isn't the subject itself that you are offended by? I think that assuming that these pictures are, or were intended to be pornography is a stretch. I look at them as vanity images, posed specifically for demonstrating Hogtie bondage technique. I have seen so many images like this, and have tied women up like this myself so many times that I have a hard time seeing it as erotic or sexual at all. Rope bondage is an art form historically, and not usually sexual. Your perspective regarding whether it adds to the article or not is, as I said earlier, something that could be argued. The article does talk about Hogtie bondage with a person on their back or side, and provides that picture. I am not convinced that removing it would affect the article significantly. I do think that the article is aesthetically interesting. Atom 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"I think that assuming that these pictures are, or were intended to be pornography is a stretch" -- they come from a commercial porn site. I don't wish to come across as unfriendly, but comments like "rope bondage is not usually sexual" are patently false. — Matt Crypto 14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You show a bias that not everyone shares. I have no problem with you carrying your own perspective, just be aware that not all (most?) don't view it that way. Rope bondage (Kinbaku Shibari) is centuries old, and as an art form ranges the spectrum in what it is used for and expresses. Hogtie bondage is only a small part of that. In fact the images here are more about rope tying art than exclusively hogtie bondage. The most western perspective of bondage as part of BDSM (rather than rope typing), again, is not always/usually about sexuality (sexuality pervades all human activity). BDSM is more about consensual power exchange, and nearly never about intercourse. I know that you are stating your opinion honestly, and not trying to be unfriendly, but there is nothing false about my statement. People who practice Shibari and/or BDSM almost never have intercourse in mind. There can be, and often is some form of eroticism involved, but something being in some way sexual, or erotic is not pornographic. As for the pictures coming from a "commercial porn site", I'm not certain as to all of the places these pictures may be on the net. Obviously the pictures are all posed, with a model and intended to display rope typing technique. There is nothing inherently sexual about them at all. I could point you to several sites that have pictures like these with step by step instructions as to how to tie the rope, and what kind of rope is best to use, as well as safety techniques. What makes one picture "educational", and the same picture on a different web site "pornography"? I would suggest the frame of mind of the viewer and the context that it is presented. On this article the context is encyclopedic, and not sexual or pornographic. There is no penetration, intercourse, or even two people displayed. Just because you, or someone else may find it erotic or arousing doesn't make it pornography. Do you think that the picture you indicated (or any on this page) would meet the miller test? Atom 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you viewed the original site: http://www.aussieropeworks.com/ ? It is not an "educational" site. It is not a site teaching safety techniques or how to tie knots. It's a pay-for-view porn site. Pornography is "is the representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal", and that was the original goal of these formerly commercial images. The vast majority of people view BDSM as a pattern of human sexual behaviour. BDSM may be other things as well, but it is primarily a sexual activity. I don't want to debate the above further, but the point remains that a large number of people will find images originally designed as pornography featuring nude women in sexual bondage to be offensive or otherwise problematic. With that in mind, we have to establish clearly that each picture makes a non-trivial illustrative contribution to the article in order to keep it. — Matt Crypto 16:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The source of the pictures isn't relevant, it is the content. As I edit most all of the sexology and sexuality articles, I am aware that this article is considered sex related. There isn't anything unhealthy, immoral or unencyclopedic about sexuality and sex-related things. As I said, sexuality is pervasive and effects nearly every part of our lives. My point earlier was not that the pictures in this article came from an educational web site, but that it and others are used educationally on other web sites. I could easily get offers from numerous people in my own community to offer educational rope bondage images that have never been on any web site. BDSM is a lifestyle based on consesual power exchange, and includes sexuality, that is true. There is nothing pornographic about BDSM sexuality or rope bondage. The context (See Miller rule is everything. In this context, with these images the point for discussion is not whether you or I or anyone else is aroused by them, or finds them to be sexual in some way, but whether they meet the test of being "obscene". They don't. Thanks, Atom 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Obscenity" is not the issue. The important question is whether the images are likely to cause offence to people. I don't believe I've said that the images are pornographic in this context. Rather, what I'm arguing is that their origin as pornography means they are likely to cause offence to some people even when reused in a Wikipedia article. That's not to say that we can't use them; it just means we have to be extra careful to make sure that they really do serve a clear illustrative purpose. — Matt Crypto 20:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I only brought up the "obscene" line because often there can be such a range of opinion that the legal issue is the only thing that can be clearly held to. I don't think that any of these images are likely to be offensive. I think you are right that some few people will see the image that exposes a breast and get bent out of shape, thinking it is pornographic. One the one hand, we can't/shouldn't self censor just because of nudity, nudity is natural and healthy. On the other hand, does that picture add enough to the article to make a big difference? I'd be hard pressed to be convinced of that. As I said earlier, it is esthetically interesting. Atom 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Several articles contain multiple photos without endless quibbles about whether each photo is necessary. See Southgate tube station. It seems to be agreed that each photo in itself is suitable for Wikipedia (and if not, see WP:IfD), so what's the big deal about whether it should be linked in one article or another? Indeed, some of them come from aussieropeworks, a pay-per-view site. Would it make any difference if another model was used to re-enact these positions especially for Wikipedia?--Taxwoman 12:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that misses the point. I mentioned the origin of the images as bondage pornography only as an argument that these images will likely cause offense to many; but I think that's already obvious. Other than that, the origin is irrelevant. Moreover, even if you remake the photo, then the likelihood for offense is just the same. The point I'm trying to make is that in the case where photos have a clear likelihood of giving offense (e.g. bondage porn as opposed to a tube station), there must be an equally clear benefit to the article before we use it. My view is that the image under discussion adds nothing of significance that isn't already covered by the other images. — Matt Crypto 17:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to lean more in your direction, Taxwoman. We are working on guidelines for images in sexology and sexuality articles, and one of the suggested guidelines is to not add additional images unless they add something meaningful to the article. In this case the specific image is being argued more because it shows a naked breast. At least one of the other users feels that this makes the image "offensive" to wikipedia viewers, and asks what that specific image brings to the article to add quality to it. I would prefer the image to remain, as I think it is aesthetically interesting in the context of rope art. I don't see why a naked breast, or nudity in general makes this specific image, or any image generally, to be offensive. I would like to get some public domain images. I will ask in my community if anyone is willing to offer their rope art photo's. (obviously involving hogtie bondage)Atom 16:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Male / female

Four out of four images use female models. Any special reason, except the fact that the editors are male and that female bondage fits better with their fantasies ? Hektor 15:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more to do with the availability of images. Most of the images in this article were not originally intended for Wikipedia, but were designed to cater to the fantasies of the (mostly male) pornography audience. I think it's clear from the discussion above that everybody would consider it an improvement if the numbers of images were more evenly balanced between men and women, but no decent images of men in hogties have yet been uploaded. --Hogtied 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never had any men take me up on my offer to put them in a pretzel hogtie and photograph them for Wikipedia.--Taxwoman 13:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me know when you want to visit Minnesota and I'll line up submissive and switch volunteers for that photo session.  ;) Atom 13:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I dare say that Taxwoman is not the sole expert. If she ties up a man, I'm sure she's interested in taking off all his clothes -- BAD TASTE!!! Since you suggest the idea, Atom, why don't you yourself tie up those men who volunteer?61.18.170.16 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you please amend the above, as you are in violation of WP:NPA. Thank you.--Taxwoman 20:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tied up plenty of men and women in my time. But, Taxwoman is my expert of preference, in this case. Atom 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Whole Image Thing

The images on this page are highly useful in depicting the nature of these hogties. As has been stated many times, Wikipedia is not censored. The suggestions that nudity detracts from the article and that the nudity should otherwise be removed are highly ignorant of this policy. I would not be at all opposed to adding more images to this page, including those depicting men tied in hogties. Nonetheless, such images would not necessarily replace the existing content, but rather a choice would need to be made as to whether the existing images are superior to the other images and as to the effects of them both being included on the state of the article. From a policy standpoint, there is fundamentally nothing wrong with the images as they are. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MY TWO CENTS

I just saw this page... and I'm not a prude by anyone's standard, I've seen my share of bad $h*t and I'm 100% against cencorship and I think if you typed in or followed a link called "Hogtie Bondage" you lose the right to be shocked.(unless someone doesn't know what it means, then i guess that would be a consideration we could look at, how many people could have totally no idea what this article is and get shocked?)  ??? OPEN QUESTION  ???

Also Humanity is capable of some nasty sh*t and to not report it, expose it, understand it, is a mistake and won't make anyone behave any different anyway (not that i'm anti-nasty-sh*t) sex, violence, violent sex, happens to most people and if you are an advocate of decency morals etc then you should work to prevent the actual violence out there and not focus on pictures of ritualised fake sexual violence, basically "get over it!"

as for the nudity or barely dressed girls as long as it explains the nature of what the act is, even just slightly better and for only one person who doesn't get it, then its worth it. and none of these pictures seems shocking relative to the nature of the article, nor do they give a sense that the editors or viewers are somehow getting pleasure from the pictures. actually (I just looked at it again).. It would be better if there was a picture of a guy in there just to prevent anyone from saying its sexist etc and make it more balanced, I'm not gay or anything... "not that there is anything wrong with that!", it just makes it look more balanced, but then again aren't most tied up persons female? I don't know but I'd think so, and those doing the watching and tying up are men right? we could find some stats on that so if 99% of those hogtied are females then all the pics should be female. ??? OPEN QUESTION ???

also the picture of the girl looking at the camera is pretty.. "uplifting"... I don't know.... if you think that, sexuality fully expressed is more educational then go with that but if you feel that simply portraying the different positions is adequate then a picture with the model not looking at the camera would be less arousing, basically do you think an article about sex should show potent sexually arousing material which would likely arouse a viewer thus explaining it on a different level? or do you think it should be more cold and unarousing allowing a more abstract and matter of fact discription? Personally I can see the merits of both POV's...  ??? OPEN QUESTION ???

any thoughts?Esmehwp 09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)