bound vs restrained

BUR #2408 has been rejected.

remove implication held_down -> restrained
remove implication stationary_restraints -> restrained
mass update held_down restrained -bound -> -restrained
create alias restrained -> bound
create implication stationary_restraints -> bound

Reason: The distinction between bound and restrained should be made clear; failing that they should be merged.

For example, we might say that bound entails artificial means (chains, ropes, bars etc.) while restrained entails natural (held down) or quasi-natural (tentacles). Or, we could say bound is a subset of restrained (so bound implies restrained), where the restraint is achieved through artifical means.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2408 (forum #164516) has been rejected by @Arcana55.

mass update held_down restrained -bound -> -restrained

This will remove held_down too.

Restrained is basically "held in place", or "prevented from moving", which can be as a result of being bound to something, or behind held in place by someone or something. Bound, on the other hand, is... well, bound. Often but not always one of tied up or some sort of bondage, it can be the whole body or only part thereof.

eg. post #3817812 is bound but it is in no way restrained, post #3799923 is restrained but in no way is it bound.

^ Beat me to it. Bound and restrained have considerable overlap but by no means should one be regarded as a subset of the other. See post #5285 for a classic example of shibari bondage in which the subject has complete freedom of movement.

So the wiki for restrained says: "Characters who are tied down or held down to prevent movement."

I propose the following change: "Characters who are prevented from moving in some way, such as by being tied up, held, weighed down, confined, or on a leash."

@iridescent_slime said:

See post #5285 for a classic example of shibari bondage in which the subject has complete freedom of movement.

If we say bound does not entail reduced freedom of movement, then what even is bound? How do we define it so that side-tie panties doesn't count? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

The bulk update request #2408 (forum #164516) has been rejected by @Arcana55.

iridescent_slime said:

See post #5285 for a classic example of shibari bondage in which the subject has complete freedom of movement.

Arcana55 said:

If we say bound does not entail reduced freedom of movement, then what even is bound? How do we define it so that side-tie panties doesn't count? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I strongly disagree with tagging something like that as being "bound". Someone whose wrists are bound can still use their legs, or if their legs are bound can use their arms, but shibari or other styles of bondage that aren't inhibiting freedom of movement can hardly be considered "bound". She's practically just wearing an outfit.

Arcana55 said:

If we say bound does not entail reduced freedom of movement, then what even is bound? How do we define it so that side-tie panties doesn't count? I'm not necessarily disagreeing, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I'm not going to try to defend bound, because I think it's a pointless tag. It only exists because people kept insisting that all the bound_* tags implicate bondage, but they can't implicate bondage because of all the cases like post #1410779 and post #3841652 where characters are bound in a nonsexual context. But we're obsessed with creating implications whether they're needed or not, so as a compromise, bound was made up from scratch just so there would be a tag for all the other tags to implicate.

Which is how we ended up in the ludicrous situation we're in now, where we're arguing over whether a character in one of the most iconic forms of Japanese-style bondage can be considered "bound".