This thread is for cleaning up pages that violate the No Lewdness, No Prudishness policy.
Do not use this thread for reporting pages that need to be cut for violating The Content Policy. Report pages that appear too lewd or gushy to have on the wiki using the "Report Page" button on the sidebar, with the checkbox saying "The page may violate the Content Policy" checked. That will create a thread on the Content Violation Discussions subforum
. The thread will be opened by a mod if the report is valid, and if it's deemed necessary, the page will be cleaned according to the Content Policy. (The list of pages that were deemed problematic can be found on The Content Policy's page.)
No Lewdness:
"Lewdness" is more than just being about something sexual or potentially sexual. Here are some signs of lewd writing:
- Personal opinions on hotness. Examples should stand on their own without the introduction of YMMV material. Adding your own thoughts and feelings on an example is an opinion, same as calling an example good or bad. Don't do it. Don't try and extend your feelings to a larger group of fans either, e.g. "...and fangirls everywhere rejoiced". You're not fooling anyone.
- Overly detailed examples. The example doesn't need to be an exact sensory account of the event. Too much of that and you end up sounding like you're writing porn. When in doubt, drop a few adjectives.
- Unrelated fanservice mentions. If the hot bits aren't related to the example, they don't belong in the example.
- Pornographic writing. If you're writing porn, it should be somewhere other than the wiki. Keep it Family Friendly.
- Titillation links. Tell, don't show. We don't need screen shots to illustrate NSFW fanservice. If a reader is really curious, they can go look it up on Google. (See also Weblinks Are Not Examples.)
- Pedo gushing. We don't need to describe children sexually. This should be cut immediately. We're not interested in hosting pedophilia fantasies. Period. If a work contains children having sex, even if portrayed negatively, report it as a potential violation of The Content Policy using the "Report Page" button◊ in the sidebar.
- Talking about actors instead of characters. An actor is not the character they play. When you're writing an example about a work, refer to the character, not the actor. This applies to non-sexual references, but too often it's tropers writing about how they find certain actors hot. That doesn't fit in character examples.
- Thinking a page with a Not Safe for Work subject is license to be lewd. Even when we discuss porn, we are about just stating the facts.
- Fanfic Recs for underage sex. We will not host any recommendation for fics that have explicit sex involving people apparently or actually younger than 16. Period. We categorically do not recommend fics with sex in which at least one participant:
- This applies even if all parties are underage.
No Prudishness:
- Don't cutlist or gut pages just because they're about sexual topics. Sex exists. It's used in media a lot. You'll just need to cope with that fact. Relationships, fanservice, and sexual activity all fall into their own tropes as a result.
- Don't be a Bluenose Bowdlerizer. We're not looking to censor all sex off the wiki. If the sex and sexuality is an honest part of the work and relevant to the example, it belongs there.
- The wiki is not rated G. We aren't sanitizing the wiki for small children. Sex and sexuality are part of media and we aren't going to ignore them. This wiki is Family Friendly, not Unsupervised Small Child Friendly. This isn't an excuse to make work pages dirtier than the work itself, as the above No Lewdness section makes clear, but neither is it an excuse to make those pages cleaner than the work itself.
For further explanations, please read this thread
Edited by GastonRabbit on Jan 6th 2024 at 3:54:01 AM
the Retromancer
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Put where? Also the link is broken, but if it needs to be "interpreted" then I guess it's not sexual at all.
Link fixed. It reads openly sexual to me and it is actually flagged as NSFW on twitter.
Edited by Adannor on Mar 23rd 2024 at 1:47:02 PM
I wanna be a cowboy, baby
yeah that's... a little TOO risque.
Stan GaruKaru for clear skin
the Retromancer
Yeah I wouldn't use it in public
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
Can't see it, but I deleted my account a while ago so maybe that's why. I'll take everyone's word.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Lucas the Dreamer
Yeah that image is too lewd. It might be best to go for a Fan Disservice image.
Why waste time when you can see the last sunset last?
Yeah, that's how twitter now treats anything flagged. Just "Move Along, Nothing to See Here" if you're not logged in.
At the page-toper: I agree with everyone else, that is absolutely sexual. I don't think Kinky Spanking is an interpretation so much as it is the whole point of the comic. The first two pages were already pushing it but the third confirms that it's meant to be cheesecake art, to say nothing of being part of an NSFW artist gallery.
I definitely wouldn't put a direct link to the comic on a trope page. In fact I'm not even sure if that can be listed as an example under a trope page. I know Content Violation works can be listed as an example if the example has nothing to do with the cuttable content, but I don't know how much this extends to listing one-off soft porn art.
From reading the description of Alternate Personality Punishment, this doesn't even look like a valid example. APP seems to be when a character does something and their alternate self is punished for it. This is just an alternate doing something and that same alternate getting spanked. So even if lewdness wasn't a problem I don't think this fits anyway.
^ In the sense that the spanker is taking out her frustrations with the original person on the alternate.
Fair point, but this still feels iffy to me. Like my other point about how a work that wouldn't pass CV standards can still have the non-violating parts get troped, but in this case, the trope is linked to the sexual action in question. I'd liken this to trying to place, say, a piece of bondage fetish fanart under a revenge trope that might apply narratively because there's an Excuse Plot given that Character A who tied up Character B was once attacked by Character B in the original canon, but it's really obvious that the bondage was the main point of the piece, not the revenge story. The pinned post doesn't talk about a situation like that though, so I don't know for certain. It... might be fine to list that as an example as long as the art isn't directly linked to and the tone doesn't gush over it?
I put it on the page and named the author (noting it's not SFW) and only mentioning the action and motivation.
Accumulating Filibuster Counters
On AlternativeCharacterInterpretation.The Bad Guys 2022:
- The Furry Fandom wasted approximately zero time interpreting Mr. Wolf's Good Feels Good reaction as a praise kink.
I'm not 100% certain if this thread is the right place to put this, but it feels a little to me like trying to shoehorn in sexual content? I was under the impression that Alternative Character Interpretation is where a character's behaviour or motivation is contested and could be seen in two or more different lights. I don't know if it belongs somewhere else, such as Fanon or Popular with Furries, but it just feels like a needless reference to the film's Rule 34 to me.
EDIT: It's gone.
Edited by Azorius24 on Mar 30th 2024 at 11:55:46 AM
"The only thing which is certain, is that something will happen".
I hate saying this but the furry fandom can make ANYTHING sexual. There was one infamous time they saw 2 toys being "put in a suggestive pose" as sexual in a preschool show right here on TV Tropes. Fran Klin
Edited by AegisP on Mar 28th 2024 at 1:41:14 AM
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Accumulating Filibuster Counters
*shudders* So, cut it in that case?
the Retromancer
Doesn't sound lewd to me (because I have no idea what this kink is), but it doesn't sound like an example as-is, needs more work's context.
Edited by Amonimus on Mar 28th 2024 at 11:51:46 AM
TroperWall / WikiMagic Cleanup
I wanna be a cowboy, baby
Is the kink mention really necessary? That's my only concern, because the praise kink 'theory' just feels like shoehorning imo. Like yes, we are well aware everything is a kink. Doesn't mean we have to mention it on every other page smh
My point is, snip it on irrelevancy alone
Edited by worldwidewoomy on Mar 28th 2024 at 6:33:10 AM
Stan GaruKaru for clear skin
@Azorius, it was cut ages ago, but I mentioned it to show we need to crack down on this Furry crap or we'll be overrun.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
Angry babby
I think it's a valid interpretation, but it's pretty much just taking the canon interpretation — Mr. Wolf likes hearing that he's good because he's not used to it — and applying it in a sexual context. It's barely an Alternative Character Interpretation since it relies on the face-value interpretation and adds a sexual interpretation that would likely be unintentional anyway. I think it could be valid Fanon if it wasn't likely something that only came up in fics we can't discuss on the site.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Agree to cut it. It's not really Alternate Character Interpretation.
Angry babby
So there's an entry on AprilFoolsDay.Web Original that I've always been on the fence about, because it goes into detail about the controversy of the Rule 34 Paheal site banning loli art. I've toned it down before to be less emotional, but it does feel a bit off-mission for the site. (By contrast, the one entry I added about a NSFW comic's April Fool's joke was about a nonsexual prank comic.)
Edited by mightymewtron on Apr 1st 2024 at 5:17:54 AM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Braids From S286 Not Included
In YMMV.Word World:
- Memetic Personality Change: Frog seems to be something of a Sex God within the fandom. Athena P posits Frog as having sexual tension with all the characters, having "rizz." His wiki page was once vandalized for it to say that he's into BDSM.
Sounds like trying to shoehorn Memetic Sex God in a preschool show.
"Rarity, are you okay? We gotta get you and your friends outta here soon!"
Angry babby
Eh, if it's a consistent meme online, as long as it's not getting outright porny, I think it's okay. Something like that is too bizarre to be offensive IMO, especially when the characters are shaped like words.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Making Crossovers since The New 10's
Found this in Film.Rebirth Of Mothra 2:
- Marshmallow Hell: Played for "laughs" — the teacher at the film's beginning gets a Caterpillar stuck in her breasts.
It's 11 years old, and the troper who added it is still active, but I don't want to send a lewdness notifier for such an old edit. Does this feel cutworthy?
Life is just a dream.
That doesn't look bad to me. It might be Marshmallow Hell misuse and the "laughs" in quotes could probably be written so it comes off as less snarky (or just snip the "played for laughs" bit since that's how the trope usually is), but I don't see that being a lewdness issue since it describes the scene pretty objectively.
Edited by greatpikminfan on Apr 13th 2024 at 8:39:53 AM
Question: Can I put a link to an image that's not directly sexual but is still easily interpreted as Kinky Spanking or just mention the artist's name? The comic itself is an example of Alternate Personality Punishment and would work just as well if it involved a physical beating instead of spanking.
The image in question:
https://twitter
. com/Calamari Cakes/status/1771270229466743217
Edited by Chabal2 on Mar 22nd 2024 at 7:04:18 PM