Talk:Rope bondage

Untitled

Someone saw fit to delete Fusion Bondage as a form of rope bondage, why?

Moreover, if we're going to ignore a massive accept and contribution to the art of rope bondage (i.e. the wave of fusion riggers and teachers sweeping the nation, not to mention best selling books on the subject) we might also want to delete the image of a fusion bondage tie!

That tie was done by the Two Knotty Boys --- fusion bondage riggers.

This place is starting to feel like early 20th century Russia --- rewriting history, omitting forward thinking contributors and ignoring change.

---

A technique I was recently taught goes as follows:

Fold the rope doubly as normal in rope bondage. Bring the looped end around the model's wrist from underneath. Form a loop in the rope on the other side of the wrist and pull it through the original loop. Tighten by pulling toward the other wrist. Bring the loop around the model's other wrist from underneath, and repeat this procedure until the rope is sufficiently thick to hold the model's arms in place. Lock the rope by looping it around the rope lying between the wrists. To untie, simply undo the loops in the middle and pull the rope out. There are no knots to undo, just pull. Remember to tell the model not to move her arms herself at all, otherwise knots will form in the rope. JIP | Talk 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Ben hogtied ballgagged.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ben hogtied ballgagged.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The broader picture- these articles are both off-focus

The article Bondage positions and methods is concentrating on the details of rope bondage but should address bondage equiptment and furniture, chain and rope while this article Rope bondage has little content, and talks about methods other than rope. Both articles are largely referenced- and no longer read 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) 15:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree. The focus of this article should be more like what we have at Japanese bondage, e.g. types of rope, as an art form, common knots or techniques (which are explicitly rope-related), potential safety hazards, etc. Some of those topics are already in this article but could be expanded. The current "techniques" section has virtually no content, is visually dominated by images, and only one of the examples seems pretty limited to rope bondage (that being the chair -- all of the others are merely positions or equipment that can be done without rope, and are better referenced through the Bondage positions and methods article). HalJor (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

String bondage

We have an article string bondage, which is effectively a long-neglected dicdef. Should that article be a redir to this article, with maybe a passing mention here? It's hard to see much substantive difference between rope and string in this regard. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I support this. HalJor (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I also support this. Can we say that we have consensus? No opposition has been expressed after several weeks. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done as no objections raised. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)