Natter and whining: Acceptable Sexual Targets

This page needs serious cleanup. Just look at it. Sections about furries and pedos are especially egregious.

Oh boy, pedophilia apologetics strikes again!

This probably isn't the right place to bring it up but I think the very concept of Acceptable Targets on this wiki needs an overhaul. There's no International Agency of Political Correctness or whatever that goes around declaring what you can and can't make fun of. It makes sense if you want to document when a particular show considers certain groups laughable, but the generalized tone these pages have, and the existence of pages like Once Acceptable Targets and Dude, Not Funny! (which, if it's unrelated to these pages, I apologize) seems to imply there's some sort of universal standard. And then some examples (like this very page) develop this weird schizophrenia where it says it's Officially OK to make fun of certain groups (like homosexuals) then admits they're getting better treatment in media.

I completely agree with an above post. Seriously, there is some kind of Moral Myopia here - people think it's OK/it's not OK/it's wrong that people think it's OK to laugh at some people and think their opinion is a fact

We have a thread for Acceptable Targets.

Though this is a separate problem from that one, I figured you might want to chip in.

edited 1st Jul '11 10:06:33 AM by Discar

This seems to be a list of any demographics anyone has ever made a joke or un-PC remark about in a sexual context, with Author on Board used like it's going out of fashion.

edited 1st Jul '11 12:24:14 PM by halfmillennium

Heieiei... Touchy subject. This seriously needs a rewrite - perhaps even an examples-lockout...

Won't someone think of the people who have sex with animals?

<i>Technically</i>, there is a case to be made that paedophiles aren't necessarily complete monsters to be hunted, but people with a problem who need help and support to avoid actually acting upon their urges. It's just such a sensitive subject that you need to be incredibly careful about what you say.

And the average internet denizen is exactly the kind of person to treat sensitive subjects with care. I really want to do an Example Sectionectomy and lockout on this page, but I think we should hold off for now as Acceptable Targets itself is being debated - we can apply their solution here.

Maybe a Special Efforts thread should be made for all these pages.

edited 2nd Jul '11 4:02:16 PM by nrjxll

Personally, I tend to feel that all sex is an Acceptable Sexual Target — for the most part, it feels like in the media, anyone who's sexually active can be made fun of for something, and anyone who isn't sexually active can be made fun of for that. There's broad taboos against discussing sexuality sometimes, of course, but when it comes up it doesn't really feel like there are unacceptable targets (not in the way that, say, most mainstream religious denominations are off-limits in the mainstream media popular in their region.)

Even shows that make fun of everything usually treat Jesus with kid-gloves, or at least portray him in a positive light (we even have a trope for it, I think); that shows that he's an unacceptable target. I don't feel that it's the same way with any sexual targets, because sexuality is personal enough (and intense enough) that anything that's even very very slightly different from yours is going to look goofy and be fertile ground for humor — as long as you don't personally feel the attraction, watching someone else be affected by it can easily become hilarious, and sometimes even then.

So I'd say this should probably just be cutlisted.

edited 7th Nov '11 10:59:39 AM by Aquillion

Jesus Was Way Cool.

But yeah, this page needs a bit of an overhaul because the nature of the subject makes it more or less impossible to be objective. I think the page could be useful, but it needs some work.

edited 7th Nov '11 11:16:58 AM by JapaneseTeeth

I second cutting the page. Let's face it: a lot of the Acceptable Target pages are soapboxes.

Bumping. This seems to have been forgotten. I'm in favour of cutting this, myself. This seems to be little more than a soapbox for people to complain that their particular group was made fun of or potrayed in a negative light in some work, and what group hasn't been?

edited 7th Feb '12 4:41:27 AM by Catbert

Do we need any of the Acceptable Targets pages? They all end up with natter and whining, as it is their nature to attract it.

It seems like we'd be better off cutting the whole thing.

It's definitely a concept that is prevalent in fiction. We may want to do an "in work only" purging.

...What is this? Is there any sexual group that is not listed on that page? Even women as a whole are listed. And then there's this:

If everyone is an acceptable target, then what is the point of this?

edited 7th Feb '12 7:23:26 AM by lu127

Axe that last paragraph. It is ridiculously unnecessary.

Btw, it's [[quoteblock]]text[[/quoteblock]]

edited 7th Feb '12 7:16:32 AM by SeptimusHeap

I've never been excited about listing examples on any of the Acceptable Targets tropes that are not explicitly called out as such In-Universe. If they've turned into people soapboxing and nattering about whether something ought to be one or not, then it's broken and needs fixing.

edited 7th Feb '12 7:33:46 AM by Fighteer

I'm adding a crowner here.

One possible option is already listed. Feel free to add other options.

Crowner hooked.

Added a possibility of merging it into Acceptable Targets. I am going to say no to cutting - 107 inbounds are a bit too much.

The varipus Acceptable Targets pages should be treated in the same way: keep them all, cut them all, or limit them all to in-universe examples. No special rules for this one!

Btw, we already have a page for in-universe examples, called Designated Acceptable Targets. Those in-iniverse of Acceptable Sexual Targets that doesn't fit under specific tropes such as Depraved Homosexual or Bondage Is Bad could be moved to Designated Acceptable Targets.

Ok,wtf?

I just read a good portion of the media examples in Acceptable Sexual Targets, and hardly any of them have any connection to the concept of "acceptable target" - designated or otherwise.

There might be a trope or two buried in this mess, but if so then those examples need a new name and description to call their home!

I have no problem cutting this entirely, if that's what we're talking about.

Cut the whole thing? Sure! I have read the whole thing now, and on my opinion it's merely a collection of random ramblings. The logic behind the so-called examples appear to be nothing more than "someone listed this sexual minority as an acceptable target, thus any work that mention ssid minority is an example - regardless of how the person, his sexuality or the social context is portrayed".

I don't think the other "acceptable targets" pages are any better.