Talk:Erotic humiliation

Humiliatrix merge

• DON'T MERGE but DO LINK: A humiliatrix is a woman whom engages in the sexual humiliation of her partner. She may also be paid to do so.

• Yeah. Sure. I say merge 'em.

• DON'T MERGE - I believe Humiliatrix should be considered a seperate entity away from the umbrella term that is erotic humiliation, in the same manner that dominatrix and BDSM should be treated seperately. It should be considered that a Humiliatrix is also a slang term for women whose personality naturally finds itself humiliating others in RL without any exchange of money or erotic implication, thus rendering erotic humiliation a dubious alternative. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.40.187 (talk • contribs)

• Merge. Fits in perfectly — basicly a female humiliator, and the list of associated sexual interests listed in this article are consistent those under Humiliatrix. Non-BDSM uses of the term Humiliatrix are almost certainly using the BDSM term metaphorically, so I don't think that disqualifies the merge. Please do include a redirect from Humiliatrix. –edgarde 03:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Against Merge - Yes, they both involve humiliation. Both are seperate topics in their own right. Atom 22:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect - There seems to be nothing in that article beyond the definition, that couldn't be placed here. Although I'm not sure I'm in favour of stating the term in this article - are there reliable notable sources for this definition, or is it just a neologism? Mdwh 17:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Diff between erotic and sexual humiliation?

I'm not sure "consent" covers it. Most humiliation is consensual. Maybe these two should be converged.

Where consent is not mutual, surely this becomes rape. Two people, equally attracted to the concept of domination and submission (assuming one to be the sub and the other to be the dom)will feel their own sense of eroticism. As a male sub, I welcome the attention of a female dom, but not in the sense that I should come away bleeding. Humiliation, saliva showers, golden shower, anal penetration and spanking all form part of my fantasy role playing and consent is a given under suitable circumstances. If at any time I chose to withhold my consent but was forced into any of those scenarios I would consider it sexual assault as would any woman who would normally participate as a sub, but who chose to say no on occasions for reasons personal to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.56.19.46 (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it, erotic humiliation is sexual humiliation which results in gratification for the humiliated person. If it's not erotic for them, then it's merely sexual humiliation, without any erotic component. Note that humiliation need not necessarily have any physical component. -- The Anome (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Facials/golden showers

The list here was pretty tame so I added that most popular of erotic humiliations, facials and pissing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.193.113.149 (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Freudian slip?

Did the author mean to say "pubic" instead of "public"?
Taxwoman 20:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The article Humiliation (BDSM) is superior. Retain it and cull the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.180.155 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Old content from Talk:Humiliation (BDSM) as merged

The general picture of the humiliation fetish does need some elaboration. I love humiliation myself and very much enjoy being called fat", "ugly", "stupid" or "worthless" and in fact a great many such "insults" are welcome. What matters is who is doing the insulting. For example: I was on the train recently and someone (male I presume) sent me a bluetooth message to my phone. "Cock sucker" it said to me. While it was fun to receive it I didn't relish the fact that the sender was probably male and that it was sent with male spite. However if I had any reason to believe the sender was a woman, it would have been wonderful!

Pafetik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.12 (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2004 (UTC)

I wonder how could I improve this article without making the first authors feeling offended in case I cut off much of it trying to make it be more comprehensive (cover many points of view) and sound more mmhh... enciclopedic? X)

[I myself enjoy humilliation too, under certain particular circumstances]

Pentalis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentalis (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 April 2005 (UTC)

MERGE

I have merged the two articles Sexual humiliation and Humiliation (BDSM), and imported the talk page of both here. The text from the latter was probably superior but I've retained most of both, adding a structure and other information. I have kept the article under the name "Sexual humiliation" since that's a broader title.

FT2 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Renamed article to "erotic humiliation"

I have renamed this article "erotic humiliation" from "sexual humiliation", since this article is about sexual humiliation in a consensual erotic context. Sexual humiliation in other contexts is a very different thing, and not even remotely erotic. -- Karada 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Poll: Small penis humiliation and small breast humiliation

I added the word "adult" in front of "male's" and "female's" in the part mentioning small penis humiliation and small breast humiliation, respectively. I also wanted to Poll to see if others wanted to delete the mentioning of small breast humiliation, since, as a connoisseur of Small penis humiliation and sexual humiliation, I have never heard of small breast humiliation. Also an internet search yields very few results, almost all of which were bogus, if quotation marks are used around the search term. I was unable to find any examples on the internet of small breast humiliation being employed. By comparison something as obscure as "small penis humiliation" yields about 75,000 hits. Many of them credible links to phonesex sites actually practicing this technique. In addition I am aware that there are many SPH groups on yahoo, but I could find none about SBH. It appears that, if any females (or males as a humiliatrix) desire this technique, there is no evidence of its being carried out in practice and therefore should not be listed as a "means" (quoting the article) of erotic humiliation that is "verbal[ized]" often enough to merit mention. Others' comments opinions ideas about deleting the mention of small breast humiliation? SPHboy4 23:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but the problem with much of this article is it's mostly original research. My suggestion is delete what does not make sense, but only add what can be documented.

Polls are of little consequence around here. Google counts are a little better, but not hard evidence in this case — Google will be biased because of porn sites catering toward more profitable sexual interests. Lack of a pandering porn site does not ipso fact disprove a sexual subgroup. / edgarde 16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of small breast humiliation. Not by itself, but coupled with other things.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Humilatrix and sexual humilation are obviously linked - one is a person the other is the act. If enough material is there to have to separate entries they should be linked but not merged. human atm, Money Slavery, Cash Slave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.135.78 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

At what point does one wonder

That a person must have some serious underlying psychological issues if they enjoy being humiliated to a rather extreme extent, such as in many of the examples cited in the article. 70.29.250.165 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you really have to wonder. Most people into this type of stuff, as well as BDSM in general, probably have some form of mental illness and/or were sexually abused as children. Much of it is very dark and even painful (literally). I'm not sure how a sane functioning person could be into fetishes that are this bizarre and extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.152.149 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a page for contemplating the morality or mental state of those that practice the subject of the article. Please keep the discussion to the editing, improvement, and expansion of the article. If the information you are describing comes from a reliable source, please add it to the article and cite it properly. 12.220.128.10 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Psychology of humiliation fantasies

The 'psychology' section has nothing in it about the actual psychology of humiliation - i.e. how we are to understand it psychologically. What motivates the desires and fantasies, what function do they serve, why it should be that humiliation or pain etc are arousing. It would be really helpful if someone could add something on this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.191.125 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-sexual Reasons

Just curious about if there are people into this that are into it for purely financial reasons, not anything sexual.

The article states:

-Money slavery, in which the submissive must buy the dominant gifts and pay the dominant's bills and taxes

-Homework slavery, in which the submissive must do the dominant's homework or occupational work

Sounds like an easy way for women to take advantage of guys who are dumb enough to be into this stuff and use them solely for financial gain. 24.90.152.149 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sign up as a male host on any sex video cam site and you will be bombarded by hordes of gay men begging you to humiliate them, begging you to degrade them, begging you to call them your slave. If you say you're straight and you're looking to service a female customer, these gay men will want you all the more. Dominate them, humiliate them, call them insulting names, and they will pay you loads of money. Makes you wonder if these humiliatees' masochistic urges foster some of the discrimination, prejudice and disgust they experience from others in real life. This page needs a strong, honest entry that explores the broken relationships, disempowerment, low self-esteem, and death ideation that can be caused by habitual indulgence in erotic humiliation. It can get so dysfunctional that the person wants to be be killed, or "snuffed" and then have things done to their corpse. In other words, they want to be disgraced even after they're dead. Erotic humiliation can get very destructive and out of hand. As this article stands, I think it is very indulgent and biased in favor of those who enjoy humiliation. A lot of the more disturbing aspects of it are glossed over or euphemized with elaborate semantics. This article reads like a "how-to" fan page for entertainment purposes as opposed to a balanced, encyclopedic entry.98.85.184.165 (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Human ashtray.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this article need quite so many illustrations?

While I'm aware that Wikipedia's (otherwise laudable) policy is to never censor itself when it deals with subjects some might find shocking, I really have to wonder if the article really needs 6 "own work" pictures to get its point across. It seems — especially considering the subject matter — very self-indulgent, though I'd be hard-pressed to cite any specific guidelines against it. Could a more experienced editor weigh in on this? – MasqueDesRonces (talk) 11:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been unsuccessfully trying to get a discussion about this sort of thing going at Talk:Cock and ball torture/Archive 1#Images, so I'll include here some of what I said there:

“ It's probably worth reminding ourselves of the MOS:IMAGES policy here: "...a potentially offensive image—one that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers—should be included only if it is treated in an encyclopedic manner i.e. only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate"... Furthermore, images should still be subject to the WP:RELIABLE sources test. We should not be adding images to provide information... that we are not also providing in reliably-sourced text... There is also the policy on WP:GRATUITOUS images: "gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship"... And it's probably also worth remembering the point made under MOS:PERTINENCE: "not every article needs images". ”

Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I wasn't aware of WP:GRATUITOUS and I'm rather relieved it exists. To be very blunt, the articles on sexual submission and fetishes in general always seem to be have fallen prey to people who get a private kick out of illustrating them with their own material. I'm going to be bold and remove the more extraneous material. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

"Otherwise laudable" policy? That smacks of "laudable when I agree with it". Otherwise, how is one to interpret that? The policy isn't "otherwise laudable", it's laudable. In your comment, you said,

the articles on sexual submission and fetishes in general always seem to be have fallen prey to people who get a private kick out of illustrating them with their own material.

A couple of questions or comments:

1. Can you provide some evidence of this, or are you just speculating? The default position is to assume good faith about the motivation of editors who added the images to the article.
2. Even if your assumption turns out to be true, so what? Afaik, there isn't any policy regarding editors' enjoyment of adding images to articles as long as the added material is encyclopedic and relevant to the article. Presumably we all enjoy what we do here at some level, or we wouldn't be doing it. Why and how people choose to contribute to the encyclopedia isn't up to us to judge.

The images you removed probably would not be appropriate at the article San Francisco, and I probably would support removal if someone added them there. However, the images are appropriate here, they add to the understanding of the article, and they don't violate any policy I'm aware of. Accordingly, I've removed your bold edit, per WP:NOTCENSORED.

As far as the "right number" of images, I don't know what the right number is, for this, or any article. You're welcome to continue the discussion and seek consensus on removing any one, or some, or all, of the images, based on sound policy reasons. Or adding more, or different ones. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The extravagant amount of illustrations in fetish articles might adhere to the letter of the law, but no casual reader would confuse it for a serious-minded attempt to elucidate the subjects of the articles. Many are, at best, tangentially relevant (in this case, the pegging and facial ejaculation drawings) or redundant (the two very similar pictures of a woman kneeling), and their sheer amount is inconsistent with the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. That said, due to a general lack of knowledge and interest in the subject, I'm happy to let the matter rest. —MasqueDesRonces (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Pet girl nude.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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:

• Piss drinking.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

a pretty pornographic kind of image is shown here

the picture is pornographic i agree with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Community_Tech_bot that

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Piss_drinking.png

must be removed as fast as possible thank you Ravinesh rds (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Community Tech bot is not a user, it is an automated process (a "bot") informing users here that there was a deletion discussion taking place over at Commons, which is where the image is hosted. If you click on the link in the post by Community Tech bot, you will see that the image was nominated for deletion, but that the discussion resulted in it being kept. What you can do is initiate a discussion on this page about whether the image is necessary for this particular article on English Wikipedia. I have no opinion on that subject. (I have moved your signature from the heading to the post itself, on multiple talk pages – please don't sign the heading.) --bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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:

• Woman bites penis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)