Comments:BDSM as business: An interview with the owners of a dungeon

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Abu Ghraib or Rebecca's Hidden Chamber?

Interesting and pretty funny -Spacehusky 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

BDSM dungeon as news

Really? This is what wikipedia considers "News" enough to make a headline? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.52.245 (talk • contribs)

• Sure; with Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and headlines about Michael B. Mukasey such as Is It Torture? The Nominee Won’t Say, why wouldn't an examination of BDSM and torture in the popular culture be appropriate? --David Shankbone 20:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikinews...not Wikipedia :) And I think its a GREAT interview...this should bring in some readers. I like to have something a bit controversial every now and then. :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - at least they don't waterboard at Rebecca's Hidden Chamber... --David Shankbone 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A- The justifications that the article will "bring in some readers"; or that "you like to have something controversial every now and then" is appalling. This article (and other recent articles on Wikinews' front page) may be news, but they are becoming father and farther from journalism. Kind of justifies Colbert's concept of "truthiness".

B- There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between BDSM and torture...see their respective wikipedia articles. Kind of like the difference between Wikinews and CNN; or between reuters and Fox News. Appalling!

C- D Shankbone's articles are getting less and less relevant and appear more and more to be in the vein of Michael Musto (as in: focused more on making himself a larger celebrity than on reporting). Tedious and cowardly. Welcome to the world of Coulter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.52.245 (talk • contribs)

It sorta figures an interview like this would be coming from David Shankbone. The trouble with interviews is they let the writer decide what is a worthy subject matter for an interview. Anyone could interview their next door neighbor about a dead and unsightly tree on their lawn. Under existing circumstances, this would be Main Page stuff, huh?, (a dead tree) ((maybe even 2nd lead)).

Ahem. I'd like to take this one on:

A- wikinews has always been a far weaker cousin of the the unstoppable juggernaut that is WikiP, anyone who disagrees is probably fairly consumed by Australian and New Zealand sporting events or maybe Canadian politics. I can only speculate that Americans are always fighting the hypnotism and manipulation by our beloved television "news." I would concede that this article did not strike as deep a rapport as previous interviews, but it did shine a bright light on a phenomenon which is almost entirely misunderstood by the mainstream.

B- Duh. (excuse me) Granted, bit of difference between being tortured while imprisoned with little or no protective rights, and forking over a considerable chunk of money because of a consuming desire to be "tortured." Don't see the point here. What's really appalling is how little understanding there is about this activity.

C- Here's where we find the largest disagreement. After a couple of years of reading Wikinews, Shankbone appeared out of nowhere, and started cranking out these interviews one after the other. The first one I met, I was surprised and thought it was self-promotion... for the interviewee, not the interviewer. It was John Vanderslice plays New York City: Wikinews interview, a guy whose name rang a bell, but didn't know anything about. I liked the guy, in fact reading that interview made my day, interesting informed opinions from a sharp musician who'se been around. Now when I run across his music, I'll be eager to hear it. I was singularly impressed with the way Shankbone seemed to get at the best this guy had to offer. I can hardly keep up with the volume he's putting out here, but after several of these interviews, I think more like a new Charlie Rose or Bill Moyers. Truthiness?...that Coulter...thing? Time to change the meds friend. I only hope he'll keep dumping these gems here before someone like Vanity Fair picks him up. Just my not-aways-quite humble opinion. - Zaz 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My response A-Perhaps Wikinews is the far weaker cousin because it puts these articles on the front page, not the other way around (that it's putting these articles on the front page because it's a weaker website). Previous recent interviews have not struck me with such a "deep rapport" either. (and, believe it or not, I'm American and I don't own a TV)

My response B- "How little there is about this activity"? "Misunderstood by the mainstream"? Is your head that far up your butt? Hate to break it to you, but the Abu Gharib and Gitmo events are not what is stirring up all the BDSM activity. As long as there has been recorded human history, there is documentation of BDSM activity and interest. And believe me, it is PLENTY understood. There is nothing in this article that is new or fascinating or revealing.

My response C-Dear God, please let Vanity Fair never have such trivial and uninteresting articles. Page 6 of the NY Psot, maybe. Let the tabloids have him. And just because he alerted you to an interesting musician does not mean he has anything qualifying him to make himself a quality reporter. You said it yourself: Shankbone is producing volume, not quality...and then you wonder why Wikinews isn't as strong as WikiP. Yes, "truthiness". See Wikiality#Wikiality. Yes, Coulter: someone who writes for the sake of self-attention and fame rather than honest journalistic integrity. You're right about one thing, though: I would also call what he's doing with these interviews "dumping" them out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.52.245 (talk • contribs)

Response

While I appreciate User:74.72.52.245's musings and attention, what he writes are simply that: just musings. He offers nothing in support to back up his contentions, and there is evidence to the contrary. Wikinews is the "weaker cousin" of Wikipedia for obvious reasons: Wikipedia garners far more media attention and is far more comprehensive; Wikipedia filled a void that existed on the Internet; Wikipedia has an army of users. Saying we should limit the scope of what we cover on Wikinews sounds counterproductive if our goal is to find more readers and, eventually, contributors.

Regarding my own interviews, I can tell you the response I receive is overwhelmingly positive. However, I certainly didn't undertake the interview project with the notion I wouldn't have any detractors (such as yourself). Stating the impetus for a story--torture in the news--is not the same as saying the two are synonymous. that said, my unpublished interview with the mistresses of the dungeon confirmed that Nazi/Dirty Jew role-playing scenarios are typical (cliche, even). So, there's an example of a War trickling down into the popular culture for you. This story, in particular, is practically one-of-a-kind on the Internet. It is exactly the kind of story we should be aiming for if one of Wikinews's goals is to supply readers with stories and perspectives they can't find in other places. If you have links to comparable stories, I'd be interested to read them - I'll let you do the research there.

Last, out of the top twenty most read news stories on Wikinews, there are five that I wrote. The list counters claims by you of a one-sided focus and illustrate the broad variety of topics and people I cover:

9 Sam Brownback on running for President, gay rights, the Middle East and religion
10 Drug-resistant staph deaths surpass AIDS in the United States
11 Obesity and the Fat Acceptance Movement: Kira Nerusskaya speaks
13 BDSM as business: An interview with the owners of a dungeon

20 John Reed on Orwell, God, self-destruction and the future of writing

Thanks for reading. --David Shankbone 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... UM... I don't know what to think of this Mutton333 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, just to clarify your responses to me:

The opinion page here is a place for opinions. (Thanks..that's what I've used it for.)

I do believe that limiting the scope of articles covered is in the benefit of creating a more loyal and substantial audience: it strenthens WikiNews' reputation to have reliable, relevant, quality reporting; simply publishing those stories which are submitted makes you...well...Fox News.

The Story of O has many sex-war-fantasy references, as does Caligula and every Bible on the planet. Not to mention the pulp fiction found in almost every pulp-horror story filmed since 1952. (And those are just off of the top of my head, without any necessary research).

Finally, you have confirmed what I noted above: that you're producing based on volume. I would qualify your interview on Obesity about as globally relevant as...well..this article here. Your article on Brownback offered no new information and read like all the information could have been garnered off of his political website.

Bottom line? Zzzzzzzz. Go write for Page 6.(preceding unsigned comment made by 206.137.78.6 )

Thanks for reading! --David Shankbone 22:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is misleading and dishonest. Rebecca's Hidden Chamber is not a dungeon. It's a session house NOT a BDSM dungeon. A session house is a pay to play operation where one hires prodommes to session with them. It's not a dungeon. I've been involved in the NYC scene since 1990 and currently there's only one dungeon in New York City. That would be Paddles. www.paddlesnyc.com The author clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.189.221 (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Interview ended suddenly, wher..."

Interview ended suddenly, where's the rest? —98.247.3.85 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Contend that BDSM Does Not Lead To Torture

 My interest in the BDSM community comes from a rather odd source--or not so odd.  To be precise, it comes from my ex-roommates.  I have now twice lived with young ladies who loved the idea of being Bottom or Sub and I have visited some dungeon stores in LA that fed such fetish.  You might think I would get addicted to it by now.  On the contrary, while I find the idea morbidly fascinating, I also find it horrifying.  Here's why.  

 The purpose behind a BDSM session (whichever you happen to favor) is often to live out a fantasy or release some pain (in a psychological mindset) and play with sexual stimulus.  The problem is...I have YET to meet someone involved in S&M who does not have a history of abuse in his/her past or an exposure to violence at an early age.  That isn't to say said person does not exist, but every exposure to S&M I have had, has stemmed from people who have had violent pasts, heavy exposure to hard pornography, particularly at an early age, or even abuse in his/her past.  People who say there is no link, between dungeons and abuse are either fringe players, haven't been heavily involved, or focus more on the psychological aspects of it than the physical aspects.

 Things like this can easily escalate out of control.  "Safe" words get mis-heard, people pass out before they can use them, blood ends a session before a person has properly calmed down, etc.  People in the S&M community are playing with fire.  This is not something to toy around with.  Animals bodies don't handle abuse.  Animals don't have sessions of consent in which they abuse each other for sexual tensions?  Yet they mate and enjoy their partners.  Why should a higher order of mammals be expected to do anything more?  Don't assume "one session" is safe.  One session can be a gateway into a lifetime of violence that will take its toll on a body.

Link-citing

Comments from feedback form - "I don't feel like this article..."

I don't feel like this article was very well edited and could have been more informative if there was less beating around the bush. But an enjoyable read, thanks for making wikinews! —24.186.210.160 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Article, But...

The deepest thing I've ever heard said about BDSM is that "BDSM does not feel like it looks." Amateur BDSM most often involves two people who really are quite fond of each other. It isn't abuse because of the addition of consent. The sub is always in ultimate control. Yes, many people who are into BDSM have abuse experiences, but BDSM helps them overcome the negative effects of said abuse. That is a pretty tall claim, but I tell you it is absolutely the case.

I know less about professional BDSM, but it seems like there would be less connection between the dominant and the submissive here than I'm accustomed to seeing in the full amateur world. I'm not sure how this changes the dynamic fully, but I suspect it is something like the difference between sex for fun and sex for money (prostitution).

I'm not fond of vanilla people who make money off of kinky people, so from that standpoint I'm not super happy that these people are making money off of something they don't fully understand internally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.49.140.155 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 January 2017

BDSM as business: An interview

Well, guys, I find this interview amusing in many ways. Actually, I´m not sure if it is for real or a piece of literary fiction. Of course, your characters (including the reporter) can "happen" in the real world, but they look too smart to be true. And too guilty. Real people try to live with themselves and what they do looking the the other way. Anyway, nice try. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.75.113.187 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Nowadays, when someone claims that something from a credible source is "fake", it's hard to tell if they're just not good at realistically assessing credibility, or if they've been successfully infected by the meme of dissing anything one doesn't want to hear, or if they're deliberately trying to spread that meme. --Pi zero (talk) 13:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)