Talk:Stocks

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Albertogramirez. Peer reviewers: Alrashed33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China

I am a Chinese and I have never heard of anything like stocks or itching powder in ancient times. I think it is simply an urban legend that Chinese used or perfected stocks. I challenge anyone to prove that claim.

Most people in Europe are commonly aware of the medieval use of stocks as a form of punishment and humiliation. As for whether the Chinese developed the stocks, this Encyclopaedia Britannica article may provide some information.

Hands and Face?

Some one has changed all the foot references to hands and face. Is this accurate or not? The examples of stocks shown are for the feet - I think the pillory was used for the hands and head. AFCR 10:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. The purpose of the stocks was to expose the feet. For a number of reasons, exposed barefeet was the main punishment of the stocks.

I cannot imagine that people would walk by a victim, who is locked in stock with their feet exposed and would not tickle them. In fact, I would imagine that some of the worse ticklings happened in stocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.17.194 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful external Article

I suggest that this History of Stocks & Pillories is very useful and should be somehow incorporated into this article. BadCop666 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stocks at ren-faires

A few years ago, me, my cousin and my Grandma went to a Ren-faire. They actually had a real set of stocks. My grandma, who is in her late 60's and kind of boney for her age, asked me to take her picture in them. Once she was in place we took her sneakers off and tickled her feet with feathers they gave us, she went banannas. We then took the picture, if I find it I'll post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EveilWeevil (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Granny:) I did that to my middleschool teacher, she took me to a ren-faire and I dared her to get in. She wuz crazy ticklish! Didn't get a picture, though. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoove Groove (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I do not think that photo of a lingerie model in the stocks is appropriate.

I agree. I would also add the there should be another picture, in addtion to the one you have now. The ren-faire picture still gives a playful image of the stocks.

Okay, I wrote the above comment a while back. After thinking about it, I thing the playful nature of the stocks were part of the punishment, (at least with respect to the tickling aspect). image that a person has been placed in them with a bunch of eager ticklers standing around. That was, most likely why they were public, i guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.124.4 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think stocks were a very crule punishment in those days

This photo should be deleted, since it points down two slippery slopes: It is gratuitously semi-pornographic, as well as being a sort of self-advertisement. It's inclusion here is degrading to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor alacarte (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

self-advertisement for whom? We have three images right now, that show the three sides of stocks, the playful, the cruel and the kinky. Max Rebo Band (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porn Images

I find it amusing that the photos of the model girl in the stocks is taken from a series of porn photos. The second one (other version) gives it away especially. Hahahaha

Last use in UK

The following article detailing the last use of stocks in the UK contradicts the facts on this page:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/archie-bland-mps-take-too-much-pleasure-in-pillorying-wrongdoers-7956265.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.82.75 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal requirement in UK?

St Peters, Kent installed a new set of stocks in 2001, citing "a law of 1405" (presumably the Fines and Forfeitures Act (7 Hen. IV) ???? ) that was still in force, requiring every village to have stocks. Aside from a 21st century installation being interesting in its own right, can anyone clarify the legal situation? 82.31.12.154 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]