Implicating rope_bondage → bound
Link to implication

Reason:

Should definitely be implicated somewhere, but I think rope_bondage → bondage → bound might be a better chain.

Genjar said:
Should definitely be implicated somewhere, but I think rope_bondage → bondage → bound might be a better chain.

This.

Edit: Beanjam makes a good point, however I feel like rope bondage should take its meaning from bondage and that might be confusing things a bit.

Genjar said:
rope_bondage → bondage

Bad implication. There is nothing inherently consensual about shibari.

Beanjam said:
Bad implication. There is nothing inherently consensual about shibari.

Hmm, that is definitely a potential issue

Beanjam said:
Bad implication. There is nothing inherently consensual about shibari.

When did they ever say anything about that?

Peekaboo said:
When did they ever say anything about that?

bondage - "This is only for consensual binding."

bound - "This is for both consensual and non-consensual binding."

I'll have to take their word for it though, I'm not really into BDSM.

parasprite said:
I'll have to take their word for it though, I'm not really into BDSM.

It's not really a standard way of using those terms in the bdsm world. Just here. Personally, I'm not entirely sure about the consensuality part of the definition here, since it's not very intuitive (nothing about the words "bound" or "bondage" indicate that consensual vs non-consensual is even involved).

I can definitely see a reason to want to indicate whether bondage is clearly consensual or a-little-more-dubious-consent, because I know that's a big deal to a lot of people. I'm just not convinced that attaching consensual vs not-as-consensual to bondage and bound is actually functioning as a way to do that. I think it could stand to be a lot clearer either by renaming one of those tags or by creating a new clearer set of tags for bondage consent levels separate from types of bondage. Because right now tags like ribbon_bondage automatically implicate bondage which means supposedly all cases of being bound with ribbons are by nature consensual. But images like post #300045 or post #108180 or especially post #105173 don't exactly seem "oh that's definitely consensual" to me. I think whatever tag(s) indicate levels of consent should be implicated to the umbrella tag(s) and not be the umbrella tags.

Another factor, is that I've also seen some people guessing that bondage could mean cuffs/shackles/handcuffs/frames and that bound could mean forms of wrapped/tied bondage (rope, wrapped in chains, ribbons, etc). The fact that tied_up and tied are both aliased to --> bound only reinforces that impression. Now, I'm not saying we should do it like that necessarily. I only bring that up because I know that dividing the tags along those lines is something that some people in real life actually do some of the time, so I think some people are using these tags like that because of their own personal backgrounds. And that our use of them along consent lines is unexpectedly obscure, confusing and non-standard to people familiar with bondage play in real life. And I think that's part of why the usage is all over the place.

Basically, I think the consensual vs not-as-consensual nuance isn't clear enough and regularly gets lost which is bad for those that rely on a tag to indicate this for their searching/blacklisting. I think there's a lot of mixed consent under both tags because to most people the words "bound" and "bondage" are synonyms. And even to those who do think there's a difference, usually they think it's based on something else like the type of bondage and not based on something like consent. And because of all of this, the usage is too mixed to really help anyone find what they're looking for. I really think there's got to be a way to make both what these tags are named and what they're to be used for a whole lot clearer and intuitive to use correctly than it is right now.

Beanjam said:
Bad implication. There is nothing inherently consensual about shibari.

The latest admin decision was that bondage should be tagged regardless of consent, because consent is impractical or impossible to determine in most cases.

Nobody's updated the wiki, but that tends to happen.

Genjar said:
The latest admin decision was that bondage should be tagged regardless of consent, because consent is impractical or impossible to determine in most cases.

Nobody's updated the wiki, but that tends to happen.

On it.

What's the functional difference here between bound and bondage? Never mind figured it out.

Edit: Removed the conflicting stuff but didn't have much to say about it. At first glance, it looks like the BDSM tags are a bit chaotic, it would be nice to have an expert on the subject look at it and see if we can condense it.

Genjar said:
The latest admin decision was that bondage should be tagged regardless of consent, because consent is impractical or impossible to determine in most cases.

Nobody's updated the wiki, but that tends to happen.

Well that does make a lot more sense. Though that does leave me wondering what the difference between them is now?

furrypickle said:
Well that does make a lot more sense. Though that does leave me wondering what the difference between them is now?

From what I've gathered bondage seems fetishistic while bound is not.

Tied to a bed and fucked -> bondage
Tied to railroad tracks -> bound

I'm not sure.
The difference never got clarified, as far as I can remember. I considered asking about it, but the thread was locked..

I presume that bondage is for actual bondage, and bound for all images of bound characters. But I have no idea what's the concrete difference between those.

Genjar said:
The latest admin decision was that bondage should be tagged regardless of consent, because consent is impractical or impossible to determine in most cases.

Thank goodness for that. Bit of a silly reason, though. A better reason would have been that we want to be able to tag things even if one of the characters happens to have tears in their eyes.

furrypickle said:
Well that does make a lot more sense. Though that does leave me wondering what the difference between them is now?

I'd assume the popular definition: bondage is sexual; bound may or may not be sexual.

parasprite said:
From what I've gathered bondage seems fetishistic while bound is not.

Tied to a bed and fucked -> bondage
Tied to railroad tracks -> bound

Beanjam said:
I'd assume the popular definition: bondage is sexual; bound may or may not be sexual.

Genjar said:
I'm not sure.
The difference never got clarified, as far as I can remember. I considered asking about it, but the thread was locked..

I presume that bondage is for actual bondage, and bound for all images of bound characters. But I have no idea what's the concrete difference between those.

I'm not entirely sure either. It looks like there's a theme of sexual/fetish vs nonsexual/non-fetish which I could see working. Though I think this still leaves a question of where to implicate specific-types-of-bound/bondage to, since rope_bondage, ribbon_bondage, etc aren't inherently sexual or non-sexual. It's almost like we need a neutral umbrella tag for all things bondage/bound/etc. And then UNimplicate tags like ribbon_bondage and implicate them all to the umbrella tag instead of implicating to bound or bondage?

furrypickle said:
I'm not entirely sure either. It looks like there's a theme of sexual/fetish vs nonsexual/non-fetish which I could see working. Though I think this still leaves a question of where to implicate specific-types-of-bound/bondage to, since rope_bondage, ribbon_bondage, etc aren't inherently sexual or non-sexual. It's almost like we need a neutral umbrella tag for all things bondage/bound/etc. And then UNimplicate tags like ribbon_bondage and implicate them all to the umbrella tag instead of implicating to bound or bondage?

I've at least rewritten a few of the major wikis to assume bondage=sexual and bound=nonsexual, since this puts it much closer to current usage than consent did. I'll look for stray articles later tonight when I have some more free time.

6 months later (not to bump) edit: I approved this for the moment while we still detangle these. See forum #154686