Follow TV Tropes

Following

Fixing lewdness issues

Go To

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Unrelated fanservice mentions. If the hot bits aren't related to the example, they don't belong in the example.
  4. Pornographic writing. If you're writing porn, it should be somewhere other than the wiki. Keep it Family Friendly.
  5. 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.)
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

Jalpo99 Making Crossovers since The New 10's from the Deku Palace Since: May, 2017 Relationship Status: Shipping fictional characters
Making Crossovers since The New 10's
#1626: Apr 13th 2024 at 7:08:06 PM

I think the way that the "Played for Laughs" tidbit at the beginning of the example description is written might be the cutworthy part. The rest of the example text can stay if that's the case.

Edited by Jalpo99 on Apr 13th 2024 at 10:09:05 AM

Life is just a dream.
mightymewtron Angry babby from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Angry babby
#1627: Apr 13th 2024 at 8:23:42 PM

I don't think it's that snarky, moreso reflecting that the show uses fanservice in its humor, but maybe it could be rewritten as "Played for laughs (and fanservice)" or something.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
MurlocAggroB from the second-most ridiculous province of Canada Since: May, 2015
#1628: Apr 14th 2024 at 2:13:37 PM

[up] That still sounds like word cruft, since Marshmallow Hell is already often played for laughs and fanservice. That part can just be snipped and it'll be fine.

mightymewtron Angry babby from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Angry babby
#1629: Apr 20th 2024 at 9:23:31 PM

This is a bit of an odd one, since I assume it's more of a Black Comedy joke and not really condoning anything, but Headscratchers.Bo Jack Horseman has this joke, regarding a character who is essentially three elementary-school-aged kids in a Totem Pole Trench, dating an adult woman unaware of this fact.

  • Don't the other two kids in "Vincent Adultman" get bored of the "face" kid always getting do all the fun stuff?
    • Maybe they're single minded triplets and each time "he" makes an appearance, the face is a different kid.
      • Not to mention if the implications about them having sex with Princess Carolyn is true, then really only the middle kid has something to complain about. And who cares about him, anyway?

Natter aside (because Headscratchers is a mess when it comes to that stuff anyway), this seems to condone Double Standard Rape: Female on Male and probably falls afoul of our policy on sexualizing children (though upon reread I'm unsure if they're implying the middle kid is the one doing the sexual activities, or if the bottom kid is — the latter feels more congratulatory while the former is more of a dark joke). For the record, I don't think the show ever confirmed Princess Carolyn and Vincent did anything sexual (the closest I remember is PC asking "Can you imagine that body in a swimsuit?" which is a setup for BoJack saying he literally cannot); most of the jokes are just about him being so obviously childish and PC thinking he's emotionally mature despite all of it, with the sex stuff all being Fridge Horror.

Edited by mightymewtron on Apr 20th 2024 at 12:24:43 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
DoktorvonEurotrash Welcome, traveller, welcome to Omsk Since: Jan, 2001
Welcome, traveller, welcome to Omsk
#1630: Apr 21st 2024 at 9:33:48 AM

[up]I haven't watched the show, but if it's true that there are no implications of them having sex, those paragraphs could just be cut.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird
mightymewtron Angry babby from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Angry babby
#1631: Apr 27th 2024 at 7:57:23 PM

Someone to Remember Him By

  • In The Simpsons badfic Lisa Is Pregnant, Bart dies while trying to keep Lisa from freezing to death by having sex with her. This results in her getting pregnant, and Marge opposes Lisa getting an abortion because the last living part of her child is inside Lisa, causing Lisa to change her mind and have the baby out of respect for Bart.

This work was cut due to sex between minors (though apparently a retcon tried to make them older, but like...). While this example isn't explicit, it still tropes the cutworthy content, so should the example also be cut?

Edited by mightymewtron on Apr 27th 2024 at 12:52:39 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
AegisP Since: Oct, 2014 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
#1632: Apr 27th 2024 at 8:04:06 PM

[up] Eeyup.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
DoktorvonEurotrash Welcome, traveller, welcome to Omsk Since: Jan, 2001
Welcome, traveller, welcome to Omsk
#1633: Apr 28th 2024 at 6:16:58 AM

[up][up]Cut, like I want to do to my visual nerves after reading that entry.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird
supernintendo128 Weeaboo extraordinare from My desk Since: Feb, 2013 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
Weeaboo extraordinare
#1634: Apr 28th 2024 at 11:23:19 AM

Let's talk about The Adventures Of Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius S 2 E 5 Operation Rescue Jet Fusion. Honestly the way this page is written is just creepy, with most of the entries focusing on this one scene (which I don't remember being as sensual as this page describes) with Beautiful Gorgeous and how she flirted with three 10-year-old boys. Yikes.

Only three tropes are about the rest of the episode.

Edited by supernintendo128 on Apr 28th 2024 at 1:26:41 PM

pee pee poo poo
mightymewtron Angry babby from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Angry babby
#1635: Apr 28th 2024 at 11:26:24 AM

I do remember the episode playing her up that way as part of the Femme Fatale parody, but yeah the prose used on the page is unnecessarily flowery. Though I don't think it's defending the notion of Beautiful actually getting with the boys or anything, just that she manipulates their crush.

Edited by mightymewtron on Apr 28th 2024 at 2:26:43 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
Add Post

Total posts: 1,635
Top