Topic on Talk:Right Through His Pants

Should this page have the noreallife tag?

19
Robkelk (talkcontribs)

This page was listed on TV Tropes's "No Real Life Examples, Please" list page (which is being replaced with Category:No Real Life Examples, Please here). However, the page has a Real Life section.

Should the Real Life section be removed. or should the request for no Real Life examples be removed? Why or why not?

Pinging recent contributors and mods: @Lequinni‎ @Goo Monster@Utini501 @HeneryVII @Useless Knowledge @FlashRebel @Labster @Looney Toons @GethN7 @QuestionableSanity @Derivative @SelfCloak

HeneryVII (talkcontribs)

Not sure about this one, although the three examples it currently has don't seem too risque, IMOHO.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

Hm. This is one where I'm not sure. I mean, I don't see how a real life example could even exist.

Goo Monster (talkcontribs)

I think it can. I've seen people on the internet convey an interest in one partner being more clothed than the other as a kink.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

True enough - Danbooru's "clothed_female_nude_male", "clothed_male_nude_female", and "clothed_female_nude_female" tags each have over a thousand entries, and "clothed_male_nude_male" has a couple-hundred entries. Which would mean No Real Life because we don't list RL kinks.

Goo Monster (talkcontribs)

We don't!? I was thinking we just don't make more 'tropes' about kinks. Well, that was all I could come up with.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Everything is a kink to somebody, so "kinks" are an Omnipresent Trope and thus don't get listed. Or so the reasoning goes. EDIT: I think.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Concur with LT, not likely to be tropable IRL.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Disagree per Goo and Robkelk - it's somewhat possible IRL if you get creative with pants zippers/boxers buttons/briefs slots/what have you. I'd also argue for No Real Life examples for similar reasons as them since just because it can be tropable doesn't mean it'd be sensible to do - it's "omnipresent" in the sense of being fairly widespread (and thus no need to list IMO), even at our least prudish we're not a kink catalogue, and I'm certain we'd be here all year besides.

Looney Toons (talkcontribs)

I think we're confusing two different things here -- "clothes convenient for sex" is not the same as what this trope is about, which is "improbable ease of sex through all barriers". Both are tropes. But they're not the same trope. And this trope is literally an exaggeration for the sake of story-telling convenience, starting on the border between "just barely possible in real life" and "possible only in fiction", then heading north at high speed. Any alleged "real life" examples are likely to be just as exaggerated. I still have to say, no real life on this one.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Ah, that makes more sense now. I appreciate the clarity, though I was ultimately agreeing with NRL on this one anyway - just for a different reasoning initially.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

"clothes convenient for sex" is not the same as what this trope is about, which is "improbable ease of sex through all barriers".

In that case, somebody needs to clean up the examples list.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

I'll probably take that on sometime Soon™ - in the meantime, where are we consensus-wise? It seems we're leaning much closer towards "No Real Life Examples".

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

The nice thing about having these discussions where everyone can see them is that everyone can see the progress toward consensus.

@Goo Monster, given the additional information we've received here, what are your thoughts?

Goo Monster (talkcontribs)

I have nothing to add. I have entertained the idea of seeing if we should revise the no kink example policy, but I doubt the pay off is worth the effort, especially because there is no guarantee that there would even be any changes.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

I feel that'd be a separate discussion anyhow, but for asking's sake - how would you propose it be revised? I do know we're not opposed to discussion of porn tropes by default, and inclusion tends to be handled page-by-page via discussions like this, but I'm 95% there's other facets I'm not aware of.

Goo Monster (talkcontribs)

I wasn't planning to put a lot of thought into it and the pay off will probably so minimal that I am not interested in spending time and mental energy into it. The only strong feeling I have on the matter is we don't add more tropes that are just straight up kinks that are pretty much only kinks, which is part of the existing policy (for example, despite eaten alive being a kink, it's more often viewed as horror, so that is definitely fine). I think stuff along the lines of Legal Jailbait and Not Blood Siblings is also fine because of the amount it shows up outside of porn. The fact that they are modified versions of real kinks to mitigate the considerable squick involved instead of just being a kink on it's own definitely helps too.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Oh, I see. Similar to my view: as I just said, we're not a kink catalogue and we'd be here all day, but erotica tropes and the like are worth discussing to some degree even if they "just" occur in porno - that said, most of the time you'll end up finding examples outside of that set of genres regardless.

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

In that case, we have consensus on the trope. I've added a "cleanup" tag to the page requesting that the "clothes convenient for sex" examples be moved, and updated the reason on the "noreallife" tag.