Danbooru

Tag implication: tied_up -> restrained

Posted under Tags

Hillside Moose

I still say restrained works better when something living is holding someone down preventing movement. That leaves out situations such as people getting cuffed to a table or a wall, but they need to be separated anyway.

lkjh098

I think there should be an overall tag for "someone is physically restrained, it doesn't matter how". Having bondage vs tied_up vs restrained all be different non-overlapping slices of the same thing both makes it hard to search for the generic concept, and leads to lots of mistagging as posts are tagged with two or more of the tags. There's about 500 posts in bondage tied_up that need fixing right now. I actually think it might be simpler to just alias the two, and if someone wants to find restraint in a non-sexual or comedic context (the current purpose of tied_up), they could just search for bondage rating:s.

lkjh098

I don't really see why post #1688980 isn't bondage: it has the purposeful physical restraint of a person, which is the wiki definition. I agree that having it get bdsm through implication is a little bit weird, but someone looking for BDSM posts might well want to see that post.

Imagine taking that post and having another version where she was wearing no clothes. That would definitely deserve the bondage tag, right? The only difference is the amount of nudity/sexual content. But we already have a system for marking nudity/sexual content: ratings. Aside from the loli/child split, I don't think having tags that mean the same thing but are split by rating is a good idea.

lkjh098

Take post #1689723. Should it be bondage or tied_up? It's not really clear to me. It's right on the borderline between safe and questionable. Someone changed the rating, so now it's rating:q tied_up. If the tags were merged, this wouldn't be a problem.

Another issue: it seems like it would make sense to implicate bound_wrists -> bondage or bound_wrists -> tied_up. However, since the right tag for that depends on the sexual content, it can't currently be implicated either way. There are several other bound_* tags that could be implicated too if the tags were merged (or one implicated to the other).

Toks

lkjh098 said:

Take post #1689723. Should it be bondage or tied_up? It's not really clear to me. It's right on the borderline between safe and questionable. Someone changed the rating, so now it's rating:q tied_up. If the tags were merged, this wouldn't be a problem.

Yeah that's definitely sexual bondage. I've seen a couple borderline posts before but not that one.

NWF Renim

Shibari would be classified as bondage, but stuff like shibari_under_clothes doesn't restrain the user like what the restrained tag is used for, so I don't think bondage should implicate the restrained tag.

Just my opinion on how tied up and bondage should be differentiated is the manner in which the characters are tied up, so rating alone shouldn't define one or the other. Bondage should be restraints and such that is sexual in nature, using bondage equipment or tying up a person in a complex manner (usually to emphasize or touch genitals). Tied up should be simple restraints which are done for the sole purpose of restraining someone in some manner and are by themselves nonsexual in nature. Going by that, the bondage tag and tied up tag would need to be cleaned up, given that there is things like shibari under the tied up tag, and things like simple restraints of a person just being tied up like a hostage under the bondage tag. The bondage wiki also makes no difference on its usage either, despite the fact that the tag itself implicates the bdsm tag, thus implying anything under it is sexual in nature.

lkjh098

NWF_Renim said:

Shibari would be classified as bondage, but stuff like shibari_under_clothes doesn't restrain the user like what the restrained tag is used for, so I don't think bondage should implicate the restrained tag.

Shibari isn't necessarily bondage, although it is bdsm. For example, shibari_under_clothes generally doesn't restrict movement so it doesn't qualify as bondage...

NWF_Renim said:

How about things like post #1197283, post #1169938, post #1458771, post #1565526, and post #1393331? Things that I don't think qualify for questionable.

... so three of those don't qualify as bondage since there's no restriction on movement. I'm not sure about post #1458771 and post #1565526 - they definitely do seem like they should be safe.

All I really want is for there to be one overall tag meaning "movement is restricted" that can be implicated by things like bound_wrists. Whether that overall tag is bondage, tied_up, restrained or something else I care less about.

Saduharta

I like the idea of dividing bondage and tied_up by easily identifiable visual cues, such as rope going between breasts/thighs or the presence of bdsm gear such as ball_gags. Tying bondage to sexual purpose without those lines seems counter productive otherwise.

I suppose the question becomes just what others include under those visual cues (nudity, cum, makeshift gags, etc). I bring that up since it seems like those additional things are often used to key bondage atm. For instance, HM's example of post #1695137 is tagged tied_up but not bondage. It's child post is the opposite though, with the only real difference being the presence of cum.

lkjh098

How would this work?

bondage implicates tied_up implicates restrained. bondage also implicates bdsm as currently.

bondage is for sexual bondage where someone is tied up/chained/etc. Other BDSM activities without actual restriction of movement are just bdsm.

tied_up includes bondage plus non-sexual ties like those currently being discussed for tied_up. You can find non-sexual ties alone by searching for "tied_up -bondage". Tags indicating specific forms of restraint, like bound_wrists, would implicate tied_up.

restrained would include tied_up plus someone being held down, grabbed by tentacles, etc.

Advantages:

  • There is a tag that bound_* can be implicated to.
  • You can still distinguish between sexual and non-sexual ties with a tag search.
  • If someone uses restrained or tied_up where bondage is more appropriate (which happens a lot), it's not tagged wrong, just tagged incompletely.
  • bdsm doesn't end up on safe posts.

NWF Renim

lkjh098 said:

Shibari isn't necessarily bondage, although it is bdsm. For example, shibari_under_clothes generally doesn't restrict movement so it doesn't qualify as bondage...

Exactly what part of BSDM dos it qualify as then if it isn't Bondage? Also Shibari does restrict movement, but not in the manner in which the restrained tag is being used for (which is being used for restricting someone from getting away). For example the rope could be done up in a manner that it rubs the crotch making it uncomfortable to walk or it could be done in a manner around the chest that is restrictive to easy breathing.

lkjh098 said:

All I really want is for there to be one overall tag meaning "movement is restricted" that can be implicated by things like bound_wrists. Whether that overall tag is bondage, tied_up, restrained or something else I care less about.

I can understand wanting a catchall, though I don't think shoehorning them together under any one of the pre-existing ones with their differences in meaning is necessarily the right approach. This might be a bad idea, but perhaps we should unalias bound from bondage and use that as a catchall for various forms of restraint that restrict body movement in some form or another, since what appears to me the restrained tag is used for is more like anchoring/leash/holding someone in place to prevent escape.

edit: wow... took so long I missed an update from 20 minutes ago...

lkjh098

NWF_Renim said:

Exactly what part of BSDM dos it qualify as then if it isn't Bondage?

D and/or M.

  • 1
  • 2