This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Okay, someone put a GIGANTIC picture of someone gagged on the "bound and gagged" front page. Pictures shouldn't be so big that they overshadow the article, plus, they should fit the theme of the article. This pic has someone gagged, but not actually (visibly) bound.
Who wants to bet that as soon as this picture is taken down, the clown who put it there will just put it back up again, and will keep it up? I'm afraid this will turn into an edit war.
Sorry, it was me. Took it down. Didn't realize just how fucking HUGE that picture was. No need to call me a clown though...
Sorry. It's just that I've seen people who apparently like to "fetish flaunt", by putting up pictures of their fetish in articles on Wikipedia. For example, an article of an actress will suddenly have a picture of her gagged (not even visibly bound), as opposed to a picture of her showing a more dynamic acting skill. Taking it down and replacing it with a more appropriate picture results in it going back up instantly. Clicking the screenname of the person who put it there shows that the person has contributed numerous such pictures.
As such, I assumed this was more of that type of thing. You can include a picture of someone bound and gagged in the Bound and Gagged article, but a couple things:
- They have to be visibly bound to fit into the trope title.
- They have to be visibly gagged as well.
- The picture needs to be shrunk to, say, 360 pixels wide or similar.
- If possible, the picture should have a story-related context to it. Like, just a random picture of someone bound and gagged wouldn't fit so much as, say, a snapshot from a TV show that indicates something like a hostage situation or kidnapping, or something to make it look like the event means something.
Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a disturbing amount of detail about gagging techniques in this definition.
Blame the fandom it attracted, so to speak. Gag fetishists. You know, the people who get off on gags (but not necessarily bondage). That would also explain the massive photo of Kimberly Bauer that was posted before of her gagged, with no actual bonds visible.
No, it was a case of "Hmm, the article seems to be lacking an image... Oh, I know! I happen to have a picture that somewhat matches the trope, maybe it'll do for the time being." Oh, and I'm more of a regular old bondage fan ;)
Removed the gratuitous snotty references to Feminazi Moral Guardians from the description ('cause feminists are the reason this trope sometimes applies to men, dontcha know.)
The gagging technique primer was in here for a reason, as the "cloth tied over the mouth" is a Discredited Trope that exists only in fiction (doesn't work in real life). There at LEAST needs to be a section about that in this description or I'll add a new trope for it myself.
Bonsai Forest: I see your point on that. Though we could go on about other discredited things, such as tying someone's hands in front (too easy for them to bite the knot free), and stuff like that. We risk the article getting too long on these details if we go on about tying methods that do or don't work in real life, gagging methods, etc. I don't want the intro being too long, so I chose to focus on how tying up is portrayed within fiction, rather than the tying methods themselves.
I'd rather see it in a new section or something.
Hmmm... does anyone know where the new pic came from?
Chris X: That picture only portrays 'Bound'. I suggest that we find a picture where it portrays the person both Bound AND Gagged.
