Discussion Main / BoobsAndButtPose

Probably the same place that the Modesty Bedsheet page used to be littered with "no one ever does this and movie buy L-Shaped Blankets because it's not like fabric can be manipulated like that."

I think some rewriting of the starting paragraphs and some examples is in order so that the article reads less like someone's passive-aggressive rant, and to reduce the excessive negativity mentioned by King Zeal below.

I don't know if Dere, Larkmarn, or King Zeal did any rewriting before me, but I stepped in and took the excessive negativity out. It was absolutely ridiculous to see ranting about how anatomically impossible and unhealthy this pose is, when in the same breath the opening paragraphs link to Cashoo demonstrating the most common poses and saying it was not uncomfortable to perform for any length of time.

Heck, I even tried it myself. I have no problem turning almost ninety degrees at the waist, and I am not in any sort of shape. I have to wonder, do the people who insist any sort of over-the-shoulder pose is impossible believe women cannot turn their waist? I'm pretty sure that would only be true if the woman in question was wearing a stay or corset.

I think the conversation of "is this pose possible?" is missing the forest for the trees. Shooting guns Gangsta Style is technically possible, as there's probably plenty of examples in real life where someone did it and actually hit their target.

The page was getting out of hand with how much it griped on the pose's practicality, but that doesn't mean we can jump in the opposite direction either. The "realism" of the trope isn't merely about ability to do the pose, but how or why a character would do it in certain situations and why the "camera" would be drawn in the exact place it is.

Tl;dr: Deleting the "justification" segments in the description.

At least add it back in the Examples list, alongside all the other ones from Tumblr. Cahsoo had a very valid point about how ridiculous the "impossible and unhealthy" claims are.

You're kind of proving my point, though. I don't think it's pragmatic to start linking opinion blogs to the page that argue about the plausibility or healthiness of the pose. For example: within the examples, there's ANOTHER Tumblr blog by a real contortionist who has very strong opinions about why the trope ISN'T plausible.

For every blog that complains about how unrealistic the pose is, there's another blog that wants to "counter" them and argue "see I can do it, so it's totally fine". Either way, it solves nothing, so I think even the contortionist blog should be eliminated.

I strongly disagree that I've proved your point by asking that Cashoo's post be placed in the Web Original section.

Cashoo's post is not simply an opinion. It's a person physically demonstrating the most common examples of the over-the-shoulder pose. I think that bears quite a bit more weight than a post which is little more than someone's opinion. On top of that, after demonstrating that these poses are not impossible, Cashoo provides anatomical pose references of male and female varieties for artists.

That's why Cashoo's post should be mentioned, if not in the opening description, then most definitely in the Web Original section alongside those who claim it's impossible, painful, or unhealthy.

Regardless of demonstration, the post is an opinion—it's made with the explicit purpose of stating WHY they have this opinion and how their personal physical ability supports that opinion. That is by definition what an opinion is.

Again, there is another post right now by a contortionist who makes the opposite argument. His opinion is that, even with his abilities, the poses are unrealistic. Blogs and tumblr pages, as I understand it, are not "Web Originals",

We are not supposed to use wiki pages to get into a battle of he-said, she-said.

EDIT: And now you've edited in regardless of discussion. Gonna report this for edit warring.

Reporting me for edit warring just because I re-included Cashoo's post as an example tells me that you've been acting in bad faith from the start.

Prior to your reporting me, I found it suspect you took no action against the blog examples which purport that this trope is physically impossible. You only took action specifically against rebuttals, despite saying you'd like to see the Tumblr examples removed entirely. I said nothing because I felt we had a common goal in making this page more neutral.

However, I'm taking no further action. I've seen in the edit history that you took this to Ask The Tropers. I don't know if that is what you meant by "reporting me" or if you have also complained to moderators about my actions in addition to that, but I feel that High Crate said all there is needed to be said on the matter.

You also followed his advice and left the examples (both negative and positive) up, so I have no further objections at this time.

I took no action because we act upon consensus. It's considered bad faith to act unilaterally when a subject is being disagreed upon.

I fully intended to remove both examples from the start, so your accusations are unfounded. If you viewed this as a matter of one side versus another side, then you were mistaken.

You might also notice that I admitted in the page about being mistaken about the Cashoo blog being your entry. This wiki defines an edit war as "edit > revert > readd", which I thought you had done. And the mods maintain that everything come to a halt and a report be made when that happens.

However, in this case, I was mistaken.

Since you're still replying, I'll just point out what I think is an example of you acting in bad faith:

"I took no action because we act upon consensus. It's considered bad faith to act unilaterally when a subject is being disagreed upon."

To me, it seems that you're selectively applying this principle. Between myself, King Zeal, Dere, and Larkmarn, there was a consensus that this article had an extremely negative slant, not to mention it was factually wrong. Whether they had already acted by the time I made my edits, I don't know, as I've not searched the history back that far. Regardless, this trope had a bad case of "physically plausible trope being treated as physically impossible—even in spite of counterexamples."

High-Speed Missile Dodge had a problem of this sort many, many years ago. Someone used the article to preach that it's impossible for a real human pilot to dodge a homing missile and that the only thing which has a chance of doing so is unmanned vehicles with AI. That betrayed complete ignorance of air combat: learning how to dodge missiles is a very important skill taught to pilots, even bomber crews. Is every pilot capable of effortlessly dodging a missile? No, and just because you know how to do it doesn't mean you can pull it off every time. Circumstances can make or break the attempt. Yet it does happen, and in fact some pilots pulled off some quite amazing feats. That alone makes the claims of impossibility pure bunk.

Anyway, back to my point:

"I fully intended to remove both examples from the start, so your accusations are unfounded."

One is left to wonder why you did not do so when you stepped in, rather than only removing statements that counteract the negativity from the introduction. I'm afraid I can't agree with you that my suspicions concerning your behavior are unfounded.

So let's consider: you stepped in and, lack for a better phrase, "pushed back" against four other editors who have noted a major negativity problem with this article, by removing most of the positive rewrite and leaving negative examples in place (which you only declared intent to remove after receiving objections to what you did). By your own metric, you've been acting against consensus, and when one of those editors disagreed with your actions and then proceeded to make a different change to the article that doesn't even involve the introductory section, you immediately tried to get him suspended by reporting him to the mods.

It strongly feels as if you were trying to get rid of an obstacle to altering the article how you wanted it, rather than trying to work with an editor who disagrees with you. Or, for that matter, trying to build consensus on what to do (as you say should be done) when there is already a group of editors whose collective opinion differs from yours.

I'm glad that you have recognized you were mistaken in assuming I added Cashoo's post from the start, but I think you should reexamine your actions more closely here.

Yeah, okay. Taking this to P Ms because now it's just getting insulting and personal.

That's... a great idea. It really is wayyyyyyy too negative... and also way too heavy on the "this is totally 100% impossible guys normal people cannot do this."