QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 5th October 2007, 7:31pm)
If they start deleting "how to" articles written solely from the perspective of personal experience and commercially-linked photos (3 women, no men)
It's a bit difficult writing about bondage other than from the benefit of experience (ideally both tying and tied). OK, the phrasing can be different, but who'd want to read a bondage article written by someone like UncleG who doesn't know what it means? Those are good quality photos and perfectly illustrate their subjects. Also, decent elbow bondage is much more difficult for men because it's rare to find a man whose elbows will get anywhere near touching. Still, next time Greg's in London I'm happy to use him as a model.
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Fri 5th October 2007, 8:13pm)
Not just any pretty pictures though... pretty pictures with links to the porn site that posted them
as an image summary.
Bedroom Bondage is scarcely a porn site; it shows less than you can see in some British newspapers every day. I know Eva too well to imagine that she'd want to remove all the excellent pictures that have kindly been donated by this and similar sites.
QUOTE(LamontStormstar @ Fri 5th October 2007, 9:35pm)
It's WJBscribe who nominated all those. Clearly WJBscribe hates Taxwoman, Poetlister, and all others.
QUOTE(Kato @ Sat 6th October 2007, 7:57am)
Of course the article should be destroyed.
Why? Because bondage is not a valid subject for Wikipedia?