Talk:Cock and ball torture: Difference between revisions

By /

 

Line 103: Line 103:

*”’Oppose”’ per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. “Cock and ball torture” (and its initialism CBT) are the normal terms in the BDSM community. Personally I’ve never come across the term “cock torture” being used (nor, for that matter, “ball torture”). To apply the principle of concision per [[WP:CONCISE]], it would be necessary that “cock torture” was exactly the same thing as “cock and ball torture”, and it is clearly a subtopic of it. The objection raised to the images in the article appears to have little to do with the article title and would not be addressed by changing it. — [[User:Polly Tunnel|Polly Tunnel]] ([[User talk:Polly Tunnel|talk]]) 11:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

*”’Oppose”’ per [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. “Cock and ball torture” (and its initialism CBT) are the normal terms in the BDSM community. Personally I’ve never come across the term “cock torture” being used (nor, for that matter, “ball torture”). To apply the principle of concision per [[WP:CONCISE]], it would be necessary that “cock torture” was exactly the same thing as “cock and ball torture”, and it is clearly a subtopic of it. The objection raised to the images in the article appears to have little to do with the article title and would not be addressed by changing it. — [[User:Polly Tunnel|Polly Tunnel]] ([[User talk:Polly Tunnel|talk]]) 11:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

*”’Strong oppose”’ per the above and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. As stated above, Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED]], and mentioning that is both unrelated to the requested move, and extremely unlikely to help make your point. <i style=”font-family:cursive,Serif;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #f008;background:linear-gradient(90deg,#fb0,#f0b);-webkit-background-clip:text;-webkit-text-fill-color:#0000″>– [[User:LuniZunie|LuniZunie]] ツ</i><sub>([[User talk:LuniZunie|talk]])</sub> 14:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This has gone too far! Where are the Wiki editors ?
The pictures ARE disturbing for the general public. I will complain to Wikipedia admins to remove this article as whole because this entry and its vulgar title do not belong to a general education encyclopedia. Why would anyone who is not involved in Sadomasochism need such a detailed account of a practice perceived as shocking and disturbing by ~95% of the population?
I find even more irritating a strong feeling that the authors displayed their images only for the purpose of their own sexual gratification. These photos seem so exhibitionistic!
Why is there a need for a detailed and graphic description of the devices and techniques? This article definitely belongs to a specialized fetish site or a fetish encyclopedia, which Wiki is not!
If Wikipedia really finds this text indispensable for “enlightening” the young generations, I (objectively) believe that it is entirely sufficient to put:
1) introduction as it is,
2) safety risks,
End! No photos, no detailed stories explaining their pains and pleasures…and the title has to be changed!
I also do not see in this rational approach any kind of discrimination, censorship or restriction of freedom of speech, as claimed by the supporters of various violent fetishes (again,which represent a very small portion of the population). Unfortunately, they have to understand that the term PUBLIC encyclopedia means it has to stay accessible to everyone and that we also have to consider the moral boundaries of the absolute majority. Some people would be frankly horrified and shocked if accidentally arrived at this page, not to mention the children.
Please do not be selfish and remove this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.147.44 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will not happen. Wikipedia is not a “public/general knowledge” encyclopedia, it is a free encyclopedia that documents notable information. Our notability guidelines are clearly detailed here, for which a fetish frequently enjoyed by a significant minority and covered in reliable 3rd party publications unambiguously fulfills. Removing content that may shock people would remove most articles on medical diseases and the horrors of warfare. If you feel that there should be an exception to this because you believe nobody would find this informative then please consider whether you believe a parent whose child tells them they are into cock and ball torture should be searching through a sadomasochism wiki to find information or whether you believe Wikipedia would be a more “appropriate” source. The censoring of content that may shock or offend is not a practice that Wikipedia engages in.AerobicFox (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an example of a situation where the rationale of “Wikipedia is not censored” is being heavily abused by…”a significant minority”. This article seems to have been significantly contributed to by someone or some people who are very enthusiastic about this subject, and the pictures clearly evidence the degree of this “enthusiasm”. It seems quite apparent that in addition to NPOV problems, the editors of this particular article are simply (ab)using this Wikipedia policy to justify posting those pictures here.
I am not shocked by these photos; unlike the subject of at least some of them. But I do think that maybe they are too much…even one or two would be sufficient? Typically Wikipedia articles of this length only have one image, if they have any at all: this one seems to be image-heavy…
Furthermore, perhaps the text describing these fetishes suffers from some non-NPOV issues; but in itself seems to be sufficient to give information on the subject without the over-abundant photos. I agree that this article requires serious re-writing; or at least a reduction in the number of images. But I do think that the tone of the writing should be in a more ‘textbook’ manner, which is to say detached and clinical. 98.232.32.54 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very telling that this comment is unsigned.
Wikipedia is a GENERAL encyclopeadia, this means that everything from John C. Calhoun to Pussies to the chemical synthesis for Vanillin. While I agree that Cock and Ball torture is disturbing, history has shown, from prohibition to the entirety of the USSR, that censorship only creates more of the censored information, a classic Streisand Effect.
Anyway, everything should be categorized, including sexual fetishes, period. With that, the only change I would propose is a NSFW filter for non-registered users or a filter blanking the article asking the user if they want to proceed in viewing NSFW/disturbing content.
Please direct yourself to the nearest Orthodox Church, you’ll have a blast. 25eanglin (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a devout Christian, the acceptance of various BDSM activities (sexual and social) varies, also specifically for CBT. I have many Orthodox friends, some of whom are open to CBT, others less so. 104.171.53.110 (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kink shamer. >:| 2600:387:0:809:0:0:0:AC (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, these images are disgusting and I don’t know how anyone would want to see those pictures. Maybe add either a less graphic real images, a animated diagram or just delete them. MCSRVR01 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how to edit the article, but there’s a typo in the first preamble
“via masochismor r emotional pleasure” 103.24.77.51 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. HalJor (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that was quick AlephPants (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


the censor template should not be on the talk page, it should be on the article, where the actual gore is displayed. i cannot edit this because it’s protected, someone please add this.

– avxktty (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per the page of the very template you are talking about: This template should only be used on talk pages for articles prone to editors censoring objectionable content from them and not merely controversial topics. Ornov Ganguly TALK 02:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
my bad, yeah, i misunderstood the purpose for the template. (and also had not known of WP:NODISCLAIMERS.) – avxktty (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could do with a few more pictures. I’m thinking of wanting to see an image with some BBC (not the British broadcaster though!) maybe one done in a Japanese hentai style, oh and don’t forget a Fursuit version as well. It would help me…uh…understand the diverse forms that this activity can take. It’s all for research purposes, promise. 50.108.117.53 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Male genitals”? Sigh. 2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:6A5D:7906:182A:37CE (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i belive it refers to them as “male genitals” becuase that is the medically correct term, i.e. the reproductive organs possessed by someome who is biologically male.
-your local trans person 80.235.130.204 (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


The redirect CABT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 3 § CABT until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia article, specifically the voiceover, is an Internet meme

examples

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs4JugITK04

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3UW63A0Bg0

I see “This article has been mentioned by a media organization:” but I can’t seem to find the coverage. If we wanted to make the meme part of the article it’d be needed so if anyone can find it help plz. Fivework (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Click “show” in the header to see the link. Unless there’s more coverage than this, I don’t see the need to add to the article itself. HalJor (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cock and ball torture → Cock tortureCock torture – The shorter, the better. There is something important to say, I will remind you that there are minors here and images on this article shouldn’t be shown without warning, this is unacceptable and the FBI may do something about this. ~2025-38178-67 (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are both terms equally common in Reliable sources? If this is the case, the shorter term is indeed preferred. In #References the current title and proposed title each show up once. Or is there even another term that is more commonly used? Joe vom Titan (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Cock and ball torture is almost certainly the more widely used term.
As an aside, what does the matter about the images on the article have to do with this? If you think it is unacceptable, you should make a new topic for that. Although, the topic will likely get shot down as per the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. MEN KISSING (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. “Cock and ball torture” (and its initialism CBT) are the normal terms in the BDSM community. Personally I’ve never come across the term “cock torture” being used (nor, for that matter, “ball torture”). To apply the principle of concision per WP:CONCISE, it would be necessary that “cock torture” was exactly the same thing as “cock and ball torture”, and it is clearly a subtopic of it. The objection raised to the images in the article appears to have little to do with the article title and would not be addressed by changing it. — Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per the above and WP:COMMONNAME. As stated above, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and mentioning that is both unrelated to the requested move, and extremely unlikely to help make your point. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 14:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version