I have no idea. All I know is that "vulgar" titles keep getting TRS threads made for them to complain about the title.
I have no problem with it if the the best/only way to convey the trope, but in this case, there's no reason "Boobs And Butt" won't work the same as "Tits And Ass".
You left out that Boobs-and-Butt Pose seems to be a more standard term outside the wiki. Also, I realize this may be a somewhat subjective matter, but "boobs" seems a lot less vulgar than "tits", and "butt" than "ass", at least to me. They're all at least mildly vulgar, but B&B seem more euphemistic to me.
(My feeling about "ass" may have to do with which side of the pond I live on. I've heard that "them furriners" consider it quite innocuous compared to the version with an 'r' which doesn't even exist over here.)
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.Actually, who knows what Google ad issues might arise if we put "tits" in an article name. Maybe "Boobs And Butt" is safer.
Also "Tits and Ass" / T&A is a phrase meaning "women showing skin" in general. That's not what this is about. It's about literally showing both, simultaneously.
I don't think crowners should list pros and cons. Options only.
Yes, some people vote without reading the thread. That's too bad. But having biased pros and cons makes that worse.
edited 30th Jun '12 1:48:10 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Biased how?
A million ways. "Is vulgar and sexist a disadvantage?" "You left out that..." They are necessarily biased, because they express opinions about the options. The whole point of that is for commentary, which is what the thread is for. Should there be a crowner for crowner options? Better to just not have pros and cons. Options only.
v "The crowner states that certain titles can come off as sexist or vulgar..." That is self-evident and not a good reason for breaking convention in that way. The cost far exceeds the benefit. Also: "[w]ith most points though, there's no debate on whether it's a pro or a con" is both false and not a reason to include them even if it were true.
edited 30th Jun '12 2:00:17 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.edited 30th Jun '12 1:58:25 PM by Routerie
Meh. I don't agree, but I honestly don't care.
This I do agree with.
edited 30th Jun '12 1:57:44 PM by KingZeal
That seems unnecessarily dogmatic for cases where there's little or no controversy about what the issues actually are, and can lead to the all-too-common case where only opinions posted on the last page of the discussion (especially the very latest comment) seem to carry any weight, which is at least as bad, if not worse.
I'd support asking for this in cases where there seems to be controversy about the issues, but I don't see why it should be a general rule. And in this case, I'm not seeing a lot of controversy about the issues—just some doubts about which solution is optimal.
edit: make it clear who I was responding to.
edited 30th Jun '12 2:43:38 PM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.The goal of such a thing would be to influence the crowner results. The only real argument, I think, is that it would be an attempt to "influence it right". Good luck with that.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.It's an attempt to summarize all arguments for and against every option. If you have any new arguments or counter-arguments, list them too. They will help people vote.
In fewer words: influence. Arguments and counter-arguments are what the thread is for. (And hey look, here is a summary, lots of people apparently agree with it, and it doesn't pose as an Official Endorsement. Neato.) Including pro/cons in crowner options also encourages people to not read the thread.
edited 30th Jun '12 2:24:37 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.What are we even arguing about? That list you linked to is the very list I'm supporting.
About whether it should be on the crowner, where it would "pose". I mean it is okay where it is. Nothing wrong with a summary post. Lots wrong with a summary on a ballot.
edited 30th Jun '12 2:33:58 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.I disagree, but not enough to continue such a silly debate on this thread, where nobody has, as far as I can see, even proposed adding such summaries. Can we end the derail?
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.I believe the original suggestion was to include those, and I don't think disputing that is at all silly.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.It is if everyone agrees there's no controversy or bias displayed in the suggested pros/cons list. Do you have any objections to anything listed, or is your argument purely philosophical? (I know it's not supported by any actual guidelines.)
Show the bias before claiming bias exists.
eta: I have no problem with omitting the summaries if you can show bias is present, but I've found summaries in confusing crowners too useful in the past to accept a general "we should never do this" argument.
edited 30th Jun '12 3:04:41 PM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.I actually have an objection. That summary implies that some of the proposed names are "sexist"? I don't know where that comes from.
I added that because some Moral Guardians might see the word "Tits" as sexist, kind of like the controversy with Where da White Women At? being accused of being racist, even though the point of the trope is to call out the racism.
Hmm, as long as we're getting picky, I'll point out that anatomical incorrectness is not part of this trope (it's common, but not required), so suggesting anatomical impossibility is actually a minor disadvantage, and omitting it is not.
eta: "At least one glamor model has blamed their back problems on having to repeatedly pose in this way."
edited 30th Jun '12 4:35:20 PM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.Yes, this trope is not required to be anatomically incorrect, it just tends to it. Thus brokeback should not be in the title as it implies it's only for anatomically incorrect ones.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickSummaries might be useful for page action crowners every once in a while, but very rarely; and I don't think ever for alternate names crowners.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.So the only two that really work are Boobs And Butt or Tits And Ass? Seems like those are the preexisting terms anyway.
Boobs-and-Butt Pose. Not just Boobs And Butt.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?
Is vulgar and sexist a disadvantage? Ideally, shouldn't the phrasing make everyone uncomfortable to link it to the page without lampshading sexism?