Welp. After doing a lot of looking around in the forums over what I've missed/ignored over the last year, I see I'm probably going to regret opening this convo back up, BUT. Here goes.

Disclaimer: This conversation is not about tag implications, or whether or not bondage=bdsm (I am not effing starting that. I promise. If anyone digs in on that it's all on them.)

So, as per a long conversation from...three years ago, I think, BDSM was determined to be consensual activity, thereby rendering it highly unlikely you would ever see BDSM and rape on the same image (CoC is an easy exception, it eventually depicts both things). So, I was going to go through once again and try to straighten out any conflicts of tags. Then, I looked at the wiki and saw that consent had been removed from BDSM. Bound, however, still clearly refers to consent.

As per forum #111924, consent is "is impractical or impossible to determine from the image in many cases."-Tony

If this were totally true, we would need to stop using the rape tag, as it depends entirely on determining consent- or the lack of it.

I refer to forum #106019, forum #31032, and forum #17835, where if you ignore any sort of discussion about whether bondage is BDSM, it is repeatedly agreed upon that BDSM requires- hinges upon- consent. And while most people will also agree it is certainly difficult to determine consent from an image, the attempt should be made.

I move to revert (or re-edit) the wiki for BDSM to include language about consent, and the wiki for bondage to explicitly be for consensual binding, leaving bound for ALL binding, with restrained being the further umbrella tag which can sometimes include characters holding other characters down without the use of implements.

RedOctober said:

So, as per a long conversation from...three years ago, I think, BDSM was determined to be consensual activity, thereby rendering it highly unlikely you would ever see BDSM and rape on the same image (CoC is an easy exception, it eventually depicts both things). So, I was going to go through once again and try to straighten out any conflicts of tags. Then, I looked at the wiki and saw that consent had been removed from BDSM. Bound, however, still clearly refers to consent.

You might want to take a look at forum #142861 as it might help explain things a bit.

RedOctober said:

As per forum #111924, consent is "is impractical or impossible to determine from the image in many cases."-Tony

If this were totally true, we would need to stop using the rape tag, as it depends entirely on determining consent- or the lack of it.

The difficulty here is that making a distinction between bound and bondage based on consent is splitting hairs more often than not, particularly when the words themselves don't refer to consent in everyday usage. Put another way, the consensual vs. non-consensual on those tags has always been a non-starter and it has proven to be extremely unhelpful for tagging them since we are going against most people's intuition.

Rape doesn't have this issue because it's only used when they are obviously not consenting (e.g., resistant behavior, unwilling, crying, etc.). Put another way, we don't have this conflict with rape because it doesn't have to compete with a tag like consensual.

I refer to forum #106019, forum #31032, and forum #17835, where if you ignore any sort of discussion about whether bondage is BDSM, it is repeatedly agreed upon that BDSM requires- hinges upon- consent. And while most people will also agree it is certainly difficult to determine consent from an image, the attempt should be made.

An attempt should be made, but I don't think it's helpful to do it with tags like bondage or bound. It doesn't matter how we try to define them, the meaning based on consensual sex is still a secondary meaning. Trying to distinguish it based on consent creates more work than necessary to maintain because that isn't how the word is used in real life.

I move to revert (or re-edit) the wiki for BDSM to include language about consent, and the wiki for bondage to explicitly be for consensual binding, leaving bound for ALL binding, with restrained being the further umbrella tag which can sometimes include characters holding other characters down without the use of implements.

I'm curious what you think about this instead:

• Alias bondage -> bound
• bound - All binding
• rape - Non-consensual
• bdsm - Things that fit within BDSM fetishism
• torture - Non-consensual
• restrained - I tend to mostly use this for tentacles, but I'm pretty open to suggestions

I'm greatly against aliasing bondage away, the distinction between bound for sex and bound to restrain a person from acting is a rather easy one, and likely to be searched by people.
I think an implication from bondage to bound would serve us a lot better.

parasprite said:
You might want to take a look at forum #142861 as it might help explain things a bit.

The difficulty here is that making a distinction between bound and bondage based on consent is splitting hairs more often than not, particularly when the words themselves don't refer to consent in everyday usage. Put another way, the consensual vs. non-consensual on those tags has always been a non-starter and it has proven to be extremely unhelpful for tagging them since we are going against most people's intuition.

I guess that's fair. I just rail against not making the BDSM tag clearly defined as being consensual, because I've been actively involved in the kink scene almost as long as furdom, and consent is a core, basic tenet, without which everything we do becomes abuse. I accept that I am in the minority, and that most users will see someone binding someone else for sexual purposes and immediately tag it bondage, without consulting the wiki. However, not consulting the wiki is no excuse, really.

Rape doesn't have this issue because it's only used when they are obviously not consenting (e.g., resistant behavior, unwilling, crying, etc.). Put another way, we don't have this conflict with rape because it doesn't have to compete with a tag like consensual.

But you can apply the same guidelines about behavior, crying, etc. to see that an image where a character is bound may be against their will.

An attempt should be made, but I don't think it's helpful to do it with tags like bondage or bound. It doesn't matter how we try to define them, the meaning based on consensual sex is still a secondary meaning. Trying to distinguish it based on consent creates more work than necessary to maintain because that isn't how the word is used in real life.

Hold up hold up hold up. That is exactly how it's used "in real life." If I mentioned to you in conversation that I know a guy who likes to take people, against their will, into his basement and chain them to the wall, would you say he's into bondage? You would not. You would say he's into abducting. If, on the other hand, I said that I know a guy who likes to put his girlfriend in cuffs, you would say he's into bondage, rather than abduction.

I'm curious what you think about this instead:

• Alias bondage -> bound
• bound - All binding
• rape - Non-consensual
• bdsm - Things that fit within BDSM fetishism
• torture - Non-consensual
• restrained - I tend to mostly use this for tentacles, but I'm pretty open to suggestions

Bondage should not go away. My argument here is not about that tag at all, even, but that consent should remain a requirement for the BDSM tag.

I'll accept that it is very difficult to police that, and in fact could not be done without active user interaction, whereas other tags are just made to happen automatically with wonderful aliases and implications and the like. After all, I performed the original separation of the two, and a few subsequent purges. I get it, they clutter up quick. I don't think that is a totally sufficient reason, but if it is decided to remain defined as it is, I'll leave it be and just grumble quietly to myself every time I see someone being tortured against their will with a BDSM tag on it. 'cause that ain't BDSM. That's straight abuse.

RedOctober said:

Hold up hold up hold up. That is exactly how it's used "in real life." If I mentioned to you in conversation that I know a guy who likes to take people, against their will, into his basement and chain them to the wall, would you say he's into bondage? You would not. You would say he's into abducting. If, on the other hand, I said that I know a guy who likes to put his girlfriend in cuffs, you would say he's into bondage, rather than abduction.

The sexual meaning of bondage is a secondary meaning. The primary meaning stems from "bond" as in slavery (Interestingly, the word actually isn't etymologically related to bound, even if it the meaning was influenced by it). I'm not saying we should tag based on this or that people are confused about this, but that the meaning and kinks that surround the word will always take on some nuances of this and can get in the way of tagging.

Bondage should not go away.

I should back up here. I remember a proposal like this (specifically bondage -> bound alias) being suggested at one point as a potential option. I was curious what your opinion was since you are someone who is interested in the subject matter. We don't have many active on the forums who seem to be that familiar with BDSM culture, so it's nice to get a more informed perspective on it.

For what it's worth, a long time I would have supported the alias, but after being here for a while I doubt it would actually work out very well for us in practice.

My argument here is not about that tag at all, even, but that consent should remain a requirement for the BDSM tag.

I'll accept that it is very difficult to police that, and in fact could not be done without active user interaction, whereas other tags are just made to happen automatically with wonderful aliases and implications and the like. After all, I performed the original separation of the two, and a few subsequent purges. I get it, they clutter up quick. I don't think that is a totally sufficient reason, but if it is decided to remain defined as it is, I'll leave it be and just grumble quietly to myself every time I see someone being tortured against their will with a BDSM tag on it. 'cause that ain't BDSM. That's straight abuse.

I actually agree here quite a bit (all of the BDSM tags have this issue), which is why I'm hoping there's a solution for us that might minimize tagger bias. There are a lot of posts out there that end up getting incorrectly tagged with bondage because lay people tend to define it vaguely as "that thing where you are tied up during sex" and don't automatically associate it with consent.

I do agree that overtly non-consensual posts shouldn't be tagged with bdsm/bondage and adding that to the wiki could both help with usage and be simple enough to avoid a good bit of clutter, but I don't feel that making something inherently open to interpretation (yes, they are consenting) a requirement would help.

How are we supposed to see consent?
How are we supposed to tag ambiguous cases where it isn't clear if it is sexual restraining in a rape or consenting case?

Rape is pretty easily to tag because the portrayal of emotional stress on the victim and/or violence are often crucial elements of the painting in question, while consent doesn't necessarily need to be visible at all.

As an example: post #619943
The hood/mask makes it completely impossible to read whether or not it's consensual.

Or even without these masks, if the face simply isn't visible at all we reach the point where we have trouble discerning it.
And most people will likely decide for themselves whether or not they want to see it as consensual or as forced, it's pretty easy to bend most images to fit the personal narrative.

With all that in mind, I'd say a rather solid solution would be to go a step away from the "bondage requires consent" thing (since in effect you could still drug someone and lock them up in those restraints, meaning consent is technically optional to achieve the same result) and have BDSM reserved for images where consent is explicitly visible.

What does it achieve? We have the entire spectrum we're going to encounter on our page dealt with (non-consent is bound + rape, consent is bondage + BDSM, ambiguous cases are only bondage), and the definitions are rather easy to remember.

parasprite said:
The sexual meaning of bondage is a secondary meaning. The primary meaning stems from "bond" as in slavery (Interestingly, the word actually isn't etymologically related to bound, even if it the meaning was influenced by it). I'm not saying we should tag based on this or that people are confused about this, but that the meaning and kinks that surround the word will always take on some nuances of this and can get in the way of tagging.

You say it's a secondary meaning, yet you are the only one who has brought up sex. I haven't mentioned it once, other than in response. I agree, sex isn't inherent in BDSM. 75% of scenes at my local dungeon don't involve sex. I think, however, that for the average person, "bondage" does indeed imply "kinky sex." I think the fact that you keep assuming I'm talking sex when I'm not indicates that even you think bondage implies sex, even if it's just subconscious. Is it because I keep talking about consent? Sex isn't the only thing that requires consent. Nonconsensual binding, whether there is or is no sex, is abuse. If I cut on my wife, there's usually no sex, but she would have consented to the scene beforehand. If, instead, I bind my boyfriend and begin cutting him- fully aware he does not enjoy knife play- that is not consensual, and is abuse. I don't really understand why you keep assuming I'm talking about sex.

I also don't understand what it has to do with a discussion about whether or not the BDSM tag should have consent explicitly stated in its wiki. I am in agreement that sex is not inherent to BDSM. Consent is, though, and just as you can see that a crying person with a cock in them may not have consented to that sex, you can also see a crying person tied up even if there is no sex involved may not want to have been tied up, and so it is not bondage, part of BDSM, which requires consent. It is abuse.

I should back up here. I remember a proposal like this (specifically bondage -> bound alias) being suggested at one point as a potential option.

My issue is that the bondage tag is somewhat abstract; that is, it shouldn't be used just when someone is in bondage, but in fact when Bondage of BDSM is going on. When someone has consented to being tied up/cuffed/taped down/whatever. Bound on the other hand can be used when someone's been tied up against their will, such as a slave or some sort of abduction image. For example, post #514862. They are bound, but that image does not depict bondage.

I actually agree here quite a bit (all of the BDSM tags have this issue), which is why I'm hoping there's a solution for us that might minimize tagger bias. There are a lot of posts out there that end up getting incorrectly tagged with bondage because lay people tend to define it vaguely as "that thing where you are tied up during sex" and don't automatically associate it with consent.

I do agree that overtly non-consensual posts shouldn't be tagged with bdsm/bondage and adding that to the wiki could both help with usage and be simple enough to avoid a good bit of clutter, but I don't feel that making something inherently open to interpretation (yes, they are consenting) a requirement would help.

I don't have a solution, as far as setting up tag implications or aliases. Just as images where a character is wearing a hood could probably not be tagged with rape, since you cannot observe the face and there's may be no other context to go from, so it is true with BDSM. I don't think there is an easy answer.

So the options are define consent out of it and leave things as they are and deal with me bringing it up once every few years when I get a bee in my bonnet, or redefine consent into into it and allow active and interested taggers like me to occasionally check out the situation and retag as necessary.

Sexual ≠ sex.

parasprite said:
Sexual ≠ sex.

Conceded. My apologies.

RedOctober said:
So the options are define consent out of it and leave things as they are and deal with me bringing it up once every few years when I get a bee in my bonnet, or redefine consent into into it and allow active and interested taggers like me to occasionally check out the situation and retag as necessary.

I still feel like this is where we are. My interest in continuing to argue this side of it is waning. I'll accept whatever decision you come to.

NotMeNotYou said:
[..]And most people will likely decide for themselves whether or not they want to see it as consensual or as forced[...]

I really, really, really think we should err on the side of being generous when considering whether or not to add the forced tag
-

tfw everybody ignores you.