Talk:Hogtie

Details section cleanup

I have removed two parts of the details section. They are uncited, and read like dictionary entries. A better details section might be served by the adding of citations & writing that provides content to the concept of hog-tying, rather than just expanding upon the common meaning of the word as in a dictionary. Jack4576 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hogtie Bondage: An art, not a pornographic image

In my opinion, I think wikipedia has a right to display thhis magnifisent,beautiful type of modeling. So what if nude models are shown on Wiki, I think that is a safe place, and every artical has a place, which makes it the ultamate dictionary/encyclopedia. I strongly approve the use of nude models on Wiki, and hope this messege will be heard with respect

Robert Sanchez , California USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.205.105 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Police forces practising sexual bondage?

"In more recent years, the term has been applied to ways of restraining humans as well. Such restraints are employed in sexual bondage by police forces."

Surely that can't be correct? It must be "and also by police forces." Right?Tomkun (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bondage Image

While respecting the opinion of Robert Sanchez, and conceding that artistic value is of a highly subjective nature, I am removing the image in this section. The image appears in the Hogtie Bondage article linked to in the section, which is explicitly noted as being sexual in nature, so no overall loss of information is caused by my removal. Whether the image is R-rated art or X-rated porn may be a subject of debate, but neither should be presented to the casual reader without fair warning, as it is here. The line between censorship and good taste is nearly impossible to find, but because the image may still be accessed by following the link in the Hogtie Bondage section, I do not believe that line has been crossed. Lumbergh (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also removed the Hogtie Bondage section because its purpose was duplicated by a "See Also" link, which I have made more clear. This article is not about the sexual practice of hogtie bondage. A See Also link is appropriate; additional content and images about the sexual practice belong in that article. I can see from the page history that something of a minor edit war has been going on with the sexual image being removed and replaced repeatedly. If my edits are reverted in this manner without discussion and consensus on this talk page, I will request protection for this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. We need to convey information, not make points about society or art. Lumbergh (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources

Here are some sources that can potentially be used to expand the article content, particularly with regard to safety issues during law enforcement usage:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=XyG3802xSdwC&pg=PA504
• http://books.google.com/books?id=Pcpr4xfTkHsC&pg=PA51
• http://books.google.com/books?id=E1HEgiXjvNkC&pg=PT255
• http://books.google.com/books?id=4VkXpNe9xLoC&pg=PA169&dq=hogtie&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XEvdT_7bFoOo8gTYwozICg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=hogtie&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=KOn9yDkMC4cC&pg=PT35&dq=hogtie&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U0zdT_fFIIne9ASl6JTnCg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=hogtie&f=false
• http://books.google.com/books?id=rQz4BNMe9IEC&pg=PA188&dq=hogtie&hl=en&sa=X&ei=U0zdT_fFIIne9ASl6JTnCg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=hogtie&f=false

Regards, RJH (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2012 (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:

• Hogtied with rope.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)