Image links in the main page:: Lingerie Scene

Courtesy link

There seems to be a screenshot added for most of the examples. Aren't these too NSFW for the wiki, creepiness aside? (The same applies to the page image).

edited 13th Aug '11 11:32:42 AM by blamspam

In my humble opinion, the fact that the links aren't marked NSFW is a far more serious problem than the fact that they are NSFW. Being NSFW in itself is not, as far as I can tell, reason to cut an example (or even a page—see Cluster F-Bomb and its subpages.)

Considering the nature of the page, perhaps a blanket disclaimer that outside links are likely to be NSFW?

1) we don't want NSFW links, marked or not. If it's a NSFW link, it should be cut.

2) the larger problem is that those examples are remarkably uninformative without following the link. They need to be written so that they are not dependent on looking at the picture to know why it's an example.

3) The trope is "lingerie scene", not "naked scene". A lingerie scene generally should not be NSFW.

edited 13th Aug '11 12:19:52 PM by Madrugada

(Edit: Ninja'd by Madrugaga's edit)

In some workplaces, lingerie scenes would be considered NSFW. We're in agreement on the general principle (porn=bad, lingerie fanservice without nudity=okay for TV Tropes), just at different places as far as where to draw the NSFW line.

edited 13th Aug '11 12:32:24 PM by Dor

Unfortunately, like so many other things, we have to go with "average" or "typical". We aren't going to disallow things simply because an unusually-strict workplace might have a problem with it.

I think our only disagreement here is that I favor a three-tiered system:

1. Blatantly NSFW — not allowed.
2. NSF(Some)W — allowed if adequately marked
3. Completely clean — always okay

where you seem to favor a system with only the first and third options. Does that sound more-or-less accurate?

(Edit: Markup Fail)

edited 13th Aug '11 12:40:14 PM by Dor

Considering lingerie is prominently displayed on big billboards next to highways, I doubt it could be considered "not safe for" anything.

Unless you live in Iran, of course, but I'm willing to bet they block off our whole site anyway

Dor: I don't think that we're really advocating different things at all.

What we have is already a three-tiered system like you list. Look at the page image on Thong of Shielding, or all but one of the choices on the crowner for Diamonds in the Buff, for instance. Those are very much "maybe NSFW, maybe not, depending" images.

We have links to examples in works that are sometimes explicit and sometimes not (Oglaf and Ghastlys Ghastly Comic — whether it's NSFW or not depends entirely on which specific comic is linked — some are NSFW, some are arguable in either direction, and some are completely innocuous.

edited 13th Aug '11 12:57:31 PM by Madrugada

Which gets back to my original post. I haven't gone through them, yet (and can't, for any YouTube links—I visit this site from a very, very old laptop), but I suspect very few, if any, of the links in the article are in the "completely forbidden" category. However, it is possible (even probable, considering the subject matter) that many of them are in the "not forbidden, but need warnings" category. Possibly even enough of them that it would be simpler to put a disclaimer on the page itself.

Quite possibly. But the bigger problem is that if you can't or don't want to follow the links, you have no idea what the example is. They need to be rewritten to actually explain the scene, not simply link to a picture of it or a video clip of it.

Which, again, I absolutely agree with you on (I've been doing a lot of that, today.) That probably calls for a rename of the thread, though, since the issue of whether the links themselves are okay or not is now mostly settled.

Going through the example sections, there aren't really as many bad examples as I expected—and most of those don't even have an image, just text:

• Crossroads (Film)
• Neighbours (Live Action Television)
• The Benny Hill Show (Maybe)
• Rival Schools
• Code Lyoko
• Mulan — may not even be an example in the first place; I'd have to rewatch the film to find out.
• The Real Life example (even those people who saw the incident in question, which group I am not a member of, may not remember it twelve years later.)

The others seem to have reasonable descriptions already—perhaps not as detailed as they could be, but certainly enough so to adequately illustrate the concept.

(Edit: 2011 - 1999 = 12, not 22. Also, I somehow missed the most egregious example in my original list.)

edited 13th Aug '11 1:43:00 PM by Dor

People seem to be using it for females appearing in lingerie in works. I cut some W Animation examples as non-examples.

Maybe the description should be tweaked to put weight on the gratitousness of the seminakedness: I don't see why brief, non-fanserviced, plot justified lingerie appearings should be this trope.

edited 13th Aug '11 2:43:06 PM by peccantis

Plot-justified doesn't mean it wasn't done for fanservice; in fact, it's fairly common for plots to be designed to maximize fanservice.

which is why I listed plot-fustified along brief and non-fanservicey. Sheesh!

Sorry, I assumed those were separate items: a or b, not a and b. Plot justified is basically irrelevant (and isn't worth mentioning either way). Not fanservice should probably just be deleted, but I think it would have to be pretty extremely obviously not fanservice to qualify. (A quick skim through the examples didn't turn up any that were obviously not fanservice-y to me, except maybe the Barbie example.)

edited 13th Aug '11 4:12:44 PM by Xtifr