|
Narrative
|
Kilyle: Given that final word, I feel we need a link to Zero Punctuation's review in which he "tried" to avoid mentioning boobs. I think it might have been Tomb Raider.
Medinoc: I remember seing on this very site a link to a webcomic who treated that quite seriously. However I can't remember either the address nor the name... Medinoc: Found it! It's Octopus Pie, and the link is on the Nakeder Than The Male page. Document N: Which got deleted, I guess. Did The Great Crash take it? Twin Bird: Sadly, no. It eventually went via cutlist. Medinoc: At least the YKTTW discussion Travis Wells: Come on, it's been there for eight days and no one has complained? What kind of Discussion page is this? There's nudity in the main article! Complain about all the Children are going to be traumatized and all that.
Mike: I remember reading about Oblivion that the reason the female character had nipples under her top was that the skin on her torso was the same skin used on the male torso, meaning that she had man's nipples. Is there a way to use this to make a censor's head explode please? Twin Bird: I found the Ren And Stimpy short in question on Youtube, but while the mother is little more than a talking pair of breasts, I couldn't find a bath scene. Are you sure you remember that right? Twin Bird: Ah...Shadow Dragon 8685...does the phrase "Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment" mean anything to you? (Although it probably speaks volumes that I'm not going to remove the picture.) Lullabee: I kinda like it. It eloquently expresses the silliness of freaking out about nipples by being such a stupid homely little bump. It's not exactly pornographic, is it? Not very sexy or anything. If it's that important to people maybe it should be swapped for a man-nipple. But that's not the trope. Twin Bird: I was mostly referring to the entry he made at the bottom...check the page history. ~~~~: Yeah, I kinda went overboard. Deliberately. It was my means of semi-humorously venting exactly the same sort of outrage that Mr/s. "Obvious Reasons" used when s/he deleted the image. I'd do it again in a heartbeat, too. But then, I'm not a very subtle person. And I don't care to be. ^_^ Nentuaby: Errr... Yeah. Re-deleted the photo. I'm probably sticking my dick in a socket here, but while the reasons may or may not be "obvious" they are practical. Simply put, whatever (lack of) deeper reason there may be to react to nipples, they are not accepted in a lot of troper's societys. There are a lot of situations where a person reading TV Tropes at work or in a public place might stumble onto this page and get into real trouble for suddenly having Not Work Safe content suddenly come up on their screen.
Hey, guys, if we can have a picture of a female nipple here, then does that mean I can post a picture of my dick on the gag penis page? PuppetChaos: Above comment is epic win. Also, this discussion page wants to make me scream TV TROPES IS SERIOUS BUSINESS. Rothul: Well, the obligatory Take That response would be something along the lines of "No, because such a picture would clearly not demonstrate the trope!"... See... it's funny because despite having never met the man, I wish to imply that he has inadequate genitalia. Haw hee haw hee haw. As for the Edit War SERIOUS BUSINESS... I mean, it's no more than a reflection of society at large, isn't it? Despite the apparent silliness of the phrase, Nipples are Serious Business. That's the point the page makes, right? It's an extension of how Sex is Serious Business (which, for a myriad of reasons biological, psychological and sociological, should be self-apparently true.) It's kind of asking too much to say that people who would otherwise care about a subject, should not because they're on the internet. Inkblot: How about we keep the picture, but cover the nipple with insanely over-the-top censoring? ZeldaTheSwordsman: I say keep it, or better yet, a link to it. With a warning label. Seven Of Diamonds: I think a ridiculously censored one might be kind of funny. But yeah, nothing NSFW without a warning. Shiroi: I would say, let's take the breast image on the wikipedia (or another one) and quite completely cover it with the image of a bunny (buy anything is ok), like the one they show in the Azumanga Daioh episode when one of the protagonist got drunk, in such a way that any user could see some skin but otherwise wouldn't be even able there's a naked person there. Then in the comment we say "Under the bunny there's a nipple, but we won't show you!!" I think it's funny, over the top, and makes the point of the page at the same time, what do you say? Nentuaby said: Why are you determined to have it, beyond "I Don't give a flying fuck I'm putting it back?" Legendarylugi: Maybe because deleting it undermines the entire point of the page? Is that a good enough reason? The whole point of the page is the obviously flawed standards that make a female nipple so "offensive" to begin with. Removing the picture undermines the text. If it were up to me, I would put the picture back up, and simply caption it "Is this really that big a deal?" Honestly, it speaks volumes that infants are fed by breasts (it's their primary function), and yet nipples are hidden from view to "protect children" or for "common decency". It's a meaningless taboo. Like recently, when Selma Hayek went to an impoverished African nation, and breast fed a starving infant, and the news media here in the U.S. made a HUGE controversy over her feeding a child that would otherwise starve to death, in the name of modesty. That is not natural. The only "good" reason I can think of to remove the picture is that, while perhaps the taboo is unneccessary, maybe for Tv Tropes that's not so important as the fact that said taboo exists, and Tv Tropes isn't for political soapboxing. That is the only reason I can understand to remove it, and even that feels tenuous. Twin Bird: This page is about the taboo. It is not about "the obviously flawed standards" leading to the taboo, just the taboo. We don't make pages like that on the main wiki. See Tropes Are Tools, License To Whine. Caswin: So I deleted the image that was placed here (accompanied by the note "Time to emotional scar some people...") a few weeks back without — apparently much like the original editor — a clear idea of what led to it, with a half-joking comment in the reason box that, in retrospect, could easily be misinterpreted. However, I'm still leaving it out because this page has gotten along fine without having the exact same controversial image in a slightly less volatile area. Just covering myself here. |
