Talk:Bondage positions and methods

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

Should we delete Monoglove? It's a piece of equipment that forces you into a position, like a straitjacket, rather than a position or method in itself.--Taxwoman 13:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It should be taken off the list. --Hogtied 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's also used in bondage to describe the same position. Arms secured behind the back to each other end up in one of three positions, horizontally secured to each other in a box tie, lifted vertically upwards in a reverse prayer of some form, or held vertically downwards in a monoglove position, both in various debrees of severity according the the thtent the elbows come together. The methods used are usually either rope or a strap, although occasionally forms of metal bondage are also used. The second form is sometimes the starting point of strappado leverage. Because there is no other position approaching this, the trem monoglove is used even when when the leather equipment isn't. Forms of monoglove also exist to reinforce the box tie. The reverse prayer position is borrowed from yoga, which rarely approaches the bondage version in severity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.67.246 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not ubiquitous

@Polly Tunnel: Not ubiquitous, you say? Can you please tell me which of the positions mentioned in the article does not employ ropes at all? Extremecia (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use chain almost exclusively, sometimes straps, and I can tell you I've done a number of these without using rope -- just from scanning this article: frogtie, hogtie, spreadeagle, suspension. HalJor (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked. Please pay attention to the phrase "at all" at end of the question. Perhaps paraphrasing can help you understand the question better: In which of the positions mentioned in the article, ropes cannot be used? Extremecia (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Every scene I've done using those positions didn't use rope at all. There's nothing ubiquitous about rope. The revised phrasing is a huge improvement. Period. Secondly, WP:CIVIL. HalJor (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ubiquitous means "always an option", not "non-eliminatable". Also, again, that's not what I asked. The current wording is made with the distinct intention of saying there is at least one position in which the rope can never be used. Perhaps if you let Polly Tunnel explain what they thought during the contribution, this minor misunderstanding is cleared faster. Extremecia (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a rather narrow and specialised definition of "ubiquitous" - the normal meaning is "omnipresent". "most common" is a precise and neutral wording which does not imply "cannot be used in some cases". --bonadea contributions talk 08:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Makes sense. In fact, I did feel not only the rope can be used in all the mentioned position, it is commonly used.
Thanks for your magical participation. 🙂 So, that's that for this discussion. Cheers, fellas. Extremecia (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No magic here, I saw your post at the Teahouse :-) --bonadea contributions talk 09:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I said "magical", I really meant "effective", not "out of nowhere". (Being "out of nowhere" is not ipso facto good.) You probably know how discussions are. People try to describe their view, until something clicks into place, so to speak. For example, a person inquiring about the "personal" nature of something realizes that "personal" in that context does not mean "intimate", but rather it is just the opposite of "impersonal". That's pretty much what happened when I read your message. I thought to myself, "Oh, that type of 'most common'." Extremecia (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations

It would be really helpful if someone who is a practitioner could upload some copyright free images to commons that illustrate some of the points in this article. Please ask for help if you are unsure. Here is the Upload Wizard. You put them in the category Rope bondage.--ClemRutter (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The broader picture- these articles are both off-focus

This article Bondage positions and methods is concentrating on the details of rope bondage while the parent article Rope bondage has little content, and talks about methods other than rope. This article is now largely referenced- and no longer reads as a tutorial, but needs to be structured and have a consistent writing style. Do we need both articles? Should their titles be swapped? Another pair of eyes would be welcome. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rope bondage article might benefit from some of the content here, but the focus there should be more about the "rope" part and not the "positions" part, which belongs here. Most of the positions in this article are possible (and in some cases, more practical) with other equipment like leather restraints and clips or chains, and I would support replacing some of the images here with such counterparts. But I don't necessarily agree that this article is "concentrating on the details of rope bondage", but rather it is using rope to support the description of the positions. I'll admit I wrote that sentence without reading the entire article to support my opinion, and it might benefit from a rewrite to include other equipment, as with my thoughts on replacing the images. So a slight touch-up to make this one more comprehensive (including men in the bound positions) would be welcome. HalJor (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gender specificity

The page needs rewriting, please, in a less gender-specific manner. That's not just for legal reasons, but also for objectivity: the domain is one of sexual liberty, and although men and women in it are still psychologically normal, their relationships have developed significantly, such that you are far more likely to find them switching roles on occasion. You also find far more of other forms of liberal behaviour involved, such as gay and binary individuals. You cannot presume the subordinate deing secured is always female, it never was and these days most certainly isn't: the role of partnership means power exchange is far more likely these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.67.246 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please, anybody with the given expertise and eloquence give this article a gender neutral rewrite and new selection of pictures. This is extremely gender biased and, thus, hurtful and exclusive to others.Kramegu (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not Necessarily Erotic in Nature

The main description explicitly states that bondage is done "...for mutual erotic pleasure. While often done for sexual purposes, especially the content that is most popular in the media, the practice itself may be done for other intimate reasons, in other words, just intimacy in general, not specifically sexually. The assumption that it is sexual in nature misrepresents the subject, contributing to stereotypes about the subject and just general misinformation. 73.66.246.225 (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Bondage_positions_and_methods"