Posted under Tags
mass update tied_up -> nonsexual_bondage
See topic #11114, the situation has changed little since. Going by its current wiki definition, "Physical restraint of a person in a comedic or non-sexual context," this tag is still being misused more often than not (before I cleaned up ten pages of it just now.) It needs to be either renamed, redefined, or just given up on and aliased to bondage.
I agree that tied up is a mess and will continue to require cleanup as long as uploaders ignore the wiki, but why a mass update rather than an alias? Seems like you'd accomplish as much without leaving anyone confused about where that tag went.
Also, I'd like to point out that this problem goes the other way as well; it's not hard to find entirely nonsexual images being tagged bondage. See post #777771, post #844521, post #1106167, or post #1129174 for a few examples. While the wiki for bondage doesn't specifically state that it's for images that are sexual in nature, it implicates bdsm which is sexual by definition. I don't see an elegant solution to this, though.
I disagree with the change. This is certainly not the only tag that requires regular clean up, and "tied up" describes very well what the tag is for.
Adding "bondage" to the name will just confuse taggers even more. People will think "nonsexual" stands for rating:safe.
I disagree with ( mass update tied_up -> nonsexual_bondage ) but would agree with ( create implication bondage -> tied_up ). A person who is tied up for sexual reasons is still tied up. Those who are looking for nonsexual use of restraints should search for tied_up -bondage.
I noticed that bound is currently aliased to bondage. That alias should definitely be moved to tied_up.
why a mass update rather than an alias?
I was concerned that the uploaders currently tagging sexual bondage pictures with tied up would continue to do so and not notice it had been aliased, just like they haven't noticed the definition of the tag on the wiki.
Also, I'm open to suggestions of alternative tag names to 'nonsexual bondage,' if anyone can think of any.
A person who is tied up for sexual reasons is still tied up.
I don't mind if the definition of the tag gets changed to something else either. I just think the current tag name matched with the current definition invites continuous misuse, because, well, if somebody is tied up you'd naturally think the tied up tag is appropriate, wouldn't you? It's not clearly humorous like the similar you gonna get raped.
Anyway, if the tied up tag were what it says on the tin, what would be the distinction between tied up and bondage? Ropes only for the former?
Updated
7HS said:
Anyway, if the tied up tag were what it says on the tin, what would be the distinction between tied up and bondage? Ropes only for the former?
There are several aspects of an image that may indicate that restraints are serving a sexual purpose, and thus constitute bondage. The environment, the nature of the restraints (I'm thinking more about their arrangement, e.g. crotch_rope, than the type of restraining equipment, unless it's some elaborate piece of bdsm gear.), state of undress of the restrained, sexual interaction with other characters, etc. It's partially a matter of perception, but no more than with happy, couple and other well-established tags.
As far as I can tell, the only reason for the distinction between tied_up and bondage is we don't want nonsexual bondage to implicate bdsm. We really should have an overarching tag that covers both sexual and nonsexual bondage, and implicate bound_wrists, bound_arms, etc. to the overarching tag.
Some options:
I'd prefer the first or second.
Flopsy said:
I disagree with ( mass update tied_up -> nonsexual_bondage ) but would agree with ( create implication bondage -> tied_up ).
This makes me question the use of tied up for restraints that don't actually involve "tying up" a person. Would you use a "tied up" tag for someone in a pillory, for instance? This is really stretching the intuitiveness of the tag, even if it is already being applied to things like handcuffs and straitjackets.
Come to think of it, the distinction between tied up and restrained looks pretty hazy.
lkjh098 said:
- Alias tied_up to bondage. Remove the bondage -> bdsm implication. Nonsexual bondage is bondage -bdsm. Implicate bound_* to bondage.
- Alias tied_up to bondage, but don't remove the alias. Nonsexual bondage is bondage rating:safe. Implicate bound_* to bondage.
- Implicate bondage to tied_up. Nonsexual bondage is tied_up -bondage. Implicate bound_* to tied_up.
- Leave things in their current confused state.
Not that you needed another option to consider, but I was beginning to wonder, is the bondage tag even necessary? If it's just tied up in a sexual or fetish-related sense, as appears to be the case, then it can be handled by tied_up bdsm. Are there any situations where this wouldn't work?
iridescent_slime said:
Not that you needed another option to consider, but I was beginning to wonder, is the bondage tag even necessary? If it's just tied up in a sexual or fetish-related sense, as appears to be the case, then it can be handled by tied_up bdsm. Are there any situations where this wouldn't work?
That's the same as my option 1 except using tied_up as the tag to keep instead of bondage. I don't like "tied up" as the generic tag because it has implications of using rope or similar, and it's not obviously related to the bound_* tags. Maybe bound for the generic tag?
lkjh098 said:
That's the same as my option 1 except using tied_up as the tag to keep instead of bondage. I don't like "tied up" as the generic tag because it has implications of using rope or similar, and it's not obviously related to the bound_* tags. Maybe bound for the generic tag?
Yes, that's pretty much the same concern I have about tied up. The term generally connotes wrapping someone in rope or spider webs or whatever, which isn't how the tag is used in practice, and the wiki doesn't address that. Bondage, on the other hand, is only rarely used in a non-sexual context, so it's problematic as well. I like bound as an all-purpose replacement, though that still leaves a bit of overlap with restrained which is vague in its own way.
restrained includes being held by a living thing, such as a person or tentacles. bondage/tied_up doesn't.
Working suggestion:
alias tied_up -> bound
implicate bondage -> bound
implicate bound_arms -> bound
implicate bound_legs -> bound (etc.)
implicate bound -> restrained
Updated
Bound is aliased to bondage at the moment so unless I'm mistaken that won't work unless it's unaliased. And if bound is a thing, bondage is simply bound bdsm and therefore unnecessary, isn't it? Maybe try something like this:
unalias bound -> bondage
alias tied_up -> bound
update bondage -> bound bdsm
imply bound_arms -> bound
imply bound_legs -> bound
imply bound -> restrained
Updated
iridescent_slime said:
Bound is aliased to bondage at the moment so unless I'm mistaken that won't work unless it's unaliased. And if bound is a thing, bondage is simply bound bdsm and therefore unnecessary, isn't it? Maybe try something like this:
unalias bound -> bondage
alias tied_up -> bound
update bondage -> bound bdsm
imply bound_arms -> bound
imply bound_legs -> bound
imply bound -> restrained
If bondage is emptied but not aliased to anything then people will keep filling it up with posts.
S1eth said:
People will think "nonsexual" stands for rating:safe.
I'm curious now. Why have separate tags for sexual and nonsexual bondage, anyways? Why can't we use rating:safe rather than splitting the tags?
From a quick look, almost nothing in bondage rating:safe should actually be rated safe, and most of the things in tied_up -bondage -rating:safe should be tagged bondage (or ribbon_bondage which implicates bondage).
lkjh098 said:
I'm curious now. Why have separate tags for sexual and nonsexual bondage, anyways? Why can't we use rating:safe rather than splitting the tags?
Not possible, because not all sexual bondage truly aligns with the ratings system. For example shibari is for the most part inherently sexual bondage, but shibari_under_clothes may only reveal enough that you know she's wearing it underneath her clothes, but not enough that you'd actually apply a non-safe rating to the image (example: post #1197283).
NWF_Renim said:
Not possible, because not all sexual bondage truly aligns with the ratings system. For example shibari is for the most part inherently sexual bondage, but shibari_under_clothes may only reveal enough that you know she's wearing it underneath her clothes, but not enough that you'd actually apply a non-safe rating to the image (example: post #1197283).
But are those exceptions really important enough to justify having two tags?
