Posted under Tags
create implication bound_ankles -> bondage
create implication bound_arms -> bondage
create implication bound_knees -> bondage
create implication bound_legs -> bondage
create implication bound_torso -> bondage
create implication bound_thighs -> bondage
create implication bound_wrists -> bondage
I think this brings back up questions from topic #10753, on whether these always fall under bdsm, given that bondage implicates bdsm. We have things that I don't believe should be labelled bsdm under these tags, so I do not believe these implications should be created.
Didn't find anything for bound_knees, but given that there isn't many posts under the tag, I think there is reasonable doubt given the rest to expect that there will be some exception.
NWF_Renim said:
I'd say those are definitely bdsm.
Arguable.
post #721078, post #941171, post #1334764, post #1258465, post #893992, post #1410779, post #1717341, post #1688614
Not really bdsm. This is almost, but not quite, the rating:s posts.
NWF_Renim said:
Then you're arguing that every inmate who is restrained and every person kidnapped and placed in a truck is BDSM, given that is what those posts are.
Well, I definitely have a broader definition of bdsm than you appear to. I'm treating it as "contains elements that are of specific interest to people interested in BDSM", rather than "the people in the scene are participating in BDSM in-universe". The latter can't even be tagged effectively without context - is someone kidnapped and placed in a truck, or are they role-playing being kidnapped and placed in a truck?
I'd say that if the bdsm tag means the second, the implication from bondage should be removed - but the fact that it was added, and the (until recently) wiki definition of bdsm to include all restraints, suggests that bdsm was intended to use the broader definition.
Updated
lkjh098 said:
Well, I definitely have a broader definition of bdsm than you appear to. I'm treating it as "contains elements that are of specific interest to people interested in BDSM", rather than "the people in the scene are participating in BDSM in-universe".
That broad interpretation of the BDSM tag would make it nothing more than a garbage tag, it'd be too broad to have any real value. BDSM has inherent sexual connotations, and that isn't going to change.
Whether Bondage implicates BDSM or not is entirely on how we define the tag, you've wanted to change it to mean any form of restraint or tying of the person in the other threads, so it may encapsulate everything. Given how the word can be identified and related with BDSM, I'd think this catchall would need to have a different name to keep it away from that BDSM relationship (which is part of the reason in the other thread I proposed bound should be unaliased to bondage and even suggested making it the parent of bondage).
edit:
lkjh098 said:
Well, I definitely have a broader definition of bdsm than you appear to. I'm treating it as "contains elements that are of specific interest to people interested in BDSM", rather than "the people in the scene are participating in BDSM in-universe". The latter can't even be tagged effectively without context - is someone kidnapped and placed in a truck, or are they role-playing being kidnapped and placed in a truck?
If visually the image appears like a kidnapped person and there is no sexual implications in the actual image, then it doesn't matter if it is role-playing or not, it isn't BDSM. We're not going to make a distinction between a real police officer and a person cosplaying as a police officer, unless it was obvious.
The gist of it is you're pretty much suggesting the same thing as trying to implicate maid, waitress, etc to cosplay, because people who like cosplay may be interested in those types of images.
Updated
The problem I have with separating bondage and bound is it just proliferates tags that mean the same thing, which is already bad enough with tied_up. If bondage is just bound + bdsm there's no point in having a separate bondage tag. Just unalias bondage from bdsm, treat bondage as meaning "bound", and be done with it.
NWF_Renim said:
That broad interpretation of the BDSM tag would make it nothing more than a garbage tag, it'd be too broad to have any real value. BDSM has inherent sexual connotations, and that isn't going to change.
Well, the definition of the term is already a grab bag - it includes B (bondage), D (dominance - dominatrix?), S (sadism), and M (masochism). I don't see why that's too broad to have any real value.
Updated
lkjh098 said:
The problem I have with separating bondage and bound is it just proliferates tags that mean the same thing, which is already bad enough with tied_up. If bondage is just bound + bdsm there's no point in having a separate bondage tag. Just unalias bondage from bdsm, treat bondage as meaning "bound", and be done with it.
No, what I was more trying to get out is if we do that with the "bondage" tag, I'd prefer that the tag be renamed to "bound" instead (assuming we're going with the detachment of the BDSM implication). "Bondage" is much more likely to make people go "oh, it should implicate BDSM" than having it named "bound."
lkjh098 said:
Well, the definition of the term is already a grab bag - it includes B (bondage), D (dominance - dominatrix?), S (sadism), and M (masochism). I don't see why that's too broad to have any real value.
The problem is that BDSM is in reference to sexual play/fantasy, and you can have bondage, discipline, domination, submission, sadism, and masochism all without the sexual connotation. As soon as you lump all those things together without the binding that is the sexual aspect, you're just making the tag one huge mess of random things with no real clear tie in.
-1 to implications, since this affects non-BDSM (non-sexual) posts.
Agree on not doing these implications.
