Update: TVTropes Deletes All Rape Tropes

[Kahunaburger]

Also, I don't think "freedom of speech" means what some people in this thread think it means.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Not to mention that there is essentially zero analysis on tvtropes, any trope pages amount to this happened. So instead of having a page on the implications of rape in a story you have a page that is a directory to every instance somebody is raped.

You say that like there's something wrong with that.

When the editors start to go into exacting and loving detail about how a person was raped, it gets more than a little creepy.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Also, I don't think "freedom of speech" means what some people in this thread think it means.

More like "Freedom to act like a pervert with a massive persecution complex."

 

[BrotherRool]

The question is though "Explicit to whom?". Again, if it is supposed to be "This is explicit to children" then yeah, things like murder, drugs, torture, and even other sexual content should be under scrutiny, because that's usually the topics we mention when discussing children and content. But since those topics weren't part of it, it only leads me to believe that it's simply adults who find the stuff explicit, which frankly I could care less about what other adults find "explicit". As adults we should be able to decide for ourselves what we're alright with and what bothers us, and to approach/avoid stuff accordingly, not just remove the subject (unless something illegal is going on) entirely just because someone else finds it "explicit".

Also, as a side-note, I'm not sure if rape would be the most explicit of content. Violent rape sure, but I mean date-rape is still vile yet not explicitly violent. Also I'd add that violent rape probably has the same effect as brutal torture, in that both can lead to fucked up lives afterwards, so it's not really harsher than the other two categories.

The first part is again the point I was trying to make at the start. This isn't about what you find objectionable, or the morality of the matter or trying to prevent people from watching certain types of content (specifically google did not demand this to happen), instead it's jsut about the money people pay for advertising on certains kinds of content. This is about what advertisers want their brand associated with. And I think rape is probably the least friendly of that. In any case it would flag about sexual content and violent content, two things which again some advertisers may not want their brand associated with.

As to the second, rape and torture are very similar which is why I equated them (even date rape) and rape is also used as a form of torture. The difference is, as I've said torture is a lot more culturally acceptable.

The big thing is, like almost no other major category, there is not a justification for rape. Torture? People torture all the time, our governments torture people and it's people give consent(ish) provided they don't have to really know about it and it happens to people who aren't them. We have TV shows that glorify torture, there are hero archetypes who are respected explicitly because they're willing to use torture in certain practical circumstances.

Equally murder is just a legal definition. Is it wrong to murder enemy soldiers? Spies? Capital-crime committing murderers? In self-defence? If he really deserved it? Etc, it's justified all over the place and the conditions for murder change from country to country.

And lots of people support drug use.

But there is no good side to rape, (except statutory rape, which we differentiate by name and isn't closely associated with rape). Whilst the worst of drug addiction, torture and killing equals the worst of rape, the lightest of rape is much much more scarring than the lightest forms of torture, drugs and killing

 

[Rednog]

In June alone, the videogame industry has seen controversy flare over the "Tropes vs. Women in Videogames" Kickstarter [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117776-Hitman-Studio-Apologizes-For-Nun-Massacre] - with furor over booth babes and treatment of female journalists at E3 to boot.

I'm a bit curious as to why the escapist is defending Anita Sarkeesian so hard? You don't say describe the hitman trailer, or the Lara Croft thing, nor the booth babes or female journalists with a positive or negative context, but you throw in "disgusting reaction" just when mentioning Anita Sarkeesian's kickstarter. Why isn't it neutral like the other's why isn't it "the reaction to Anita Sarkeesian's...."? Or the reverse, the questionable Hitman trailer, the horrific treatment of Lara Croft, the mistreatment of female journalists?

Because the reaction was indeed disgusting.
Her videos are much needed.
Her methods are questionable.
But the reaction she received was disgusting and - regardless of the preceeding provocation - proof of what she was referring to. Your police-analogy simply doesn't hold. Neither are random people on the Internet in any way authority, nor would the police beat you up and break your ribcage - unless of course, it happens in the US. That, however, is the equivalent of this massive flamewar against her.

mirror all data that can be recovered from the site via Google Cache.

Anyone else find this hilarious?

Ok so the reaction is disguising, but some argue the Hitman's nun thing was disgusting, or some would argue that using rape on Lara Croft to build her character is disgusting, but like I said they are still presented neutrally.

Her videos are much needed? Why? She's released plenty of videos before, but they haven't changed the world, hell they haven't even hit most people's radar. Did her video about linking Bayonetta's ad campaign to molestation in Japan do anything? So why does this video from her get a pass that it's going to be some kind of revolutionary change to the industry?

Ok let's change the analogy up and replace police with bikers.
If I walk into a biker bar and say hey look bikers are terrible people who are a menace to society and to prove it I'm going to punch out a biker. And then I act all shocked and hurt when the bikers draw their guns and beat the living crap out of e. I then scream See! See! The biker are evil, look what they're doing to me!
Exactly the same message and the point still stands, you cannot go about proving a point when you're the one loading the circumstances. Like in my example it doesn't prove that bikers are evil because my actions specifically caused their negative reaction.

And once again because it bears repeating, the means do not justify the ends. Ok so you want to go out and prove a point, but who is going to listen to it and give it credence when the means you go about it is dirty.

 

[Grygor]

I dun buy it. Fast Eddie has been an awful host for quite some time. Why there hasn't been an exodus of tropers to set up a sensibly run site is beyond me.

Because the good tropers who quit were followed by the jackasses who were bitching that their favorite lolicon anime was taken down. So any attempt to make a new community, the scum follow them thinking that they'll get their porn pages back.

at first I was opposed to the "pedo purge" because it would unfortunately ruinmany legitimate works like Lolita until I realized that letting Lolita exist was supplying tropers the ability to rule lawyer why their pedo anime should stay. The community is the entire problem, no matter what happens they perversify everything. Plus their blatant anti-intellectualism keeps the site from being about literary analysis and merely laundry lists of things that happen. This is why the rape pages needed to go, it wasn't a page about the merits of rape in stories, it was a directory for their wank fodder.

Pretty much this.

The problem with TVTropes is that the user base is fundamentally broken, which is the direct cause of all the site's various dysfunctions.

It purports to be a encyclopedia of narrative constructs and patterns, but it has devolved into a list of "things that happened" (despite that I'm fairly sure there once was a disclaimer that "a thing that happened" is not a trope), lame in-jokes (like "Checkhov's Pun" and "Chekov's Gun"), and gratuitous Japanophilia - a land where a trope is "illustrated" with a unfathomably long list of aversions (even though, the way tropers interpret "aversion", the set of works in which a given trope is either "invoked" or "averted" is absolutely everything), inversions, subversions, deconstructions (using the term incorrectly, naturally), and multiple subversions that don't help to understand the trope so much as obfuscate it.

TVTropes as it stands is basically a manifestation of tropers' pathological obsession with categorization.

 

[Zydrate]

This is quite a shame, I'm afraid.
The articles on TVTropes were very non-offensive, it's a shame they had to do this.

I hope a solution is presented soon.

 

[him over there]

Not to mention that there is essentially zero analysis on tvtropes, any trope pages amount to this happened. So instead of having a page on the implications of rape in a story you have a page that is a directory to every instance somebody is raped.

You say that like there's something wrong with that.

When the editors start to go into exacting and loving detail about how a person was raped, it gets more than a little creepy.

Even more so when 90% of the media they reference are playing it for titilation. When they were banning pedophilia people cited that Lolita was staying and that was why their creepy loli porn should stay, the creeps aren't a vocal minority, it's almost every troper.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

This page [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeTropes]? It looks pretty undeleted to me.

238U

 

[Kiwilove]

The pages appear to be back. Seems it was a temporary situation. Now, can someone explain why the front page of this site is full of articles on rape at the moment? Seriously, pace yourselves with the traumatizing subject matter, will you?

 

[DarkRyter]

When the editors start to go into exacting and loving detail about how a person was raped, it gets more than a little creepy.

I have no idea where people get the whole creepy vibe, from. Looking at the actual trope pages, all the examples are described in an almost clinical manner or at the very least, describing it within the context of the example.

"This seems to be the backstory of Hawkeye of the Young Avengers. She was assaulted and strongly hinted to have been sexually molested while walking home one night. She decided to deal with the trauma by taking up a bow and arrow and fencing, dressing up in purple, and beating up aliens and criminals. Her therapist approves." ~ Rape As Backstory Page, Comics.

"There is one Hentai short where a woman is attacked by a gang of tentacle monsters that tear off her clothes and begin to rape her. They stop when they realize she isn't screaming and complain that if she enjoys it they'll be fired as they have quotas to meet." ~ Black Comedy Rape, Anime and Manga (The page is still up for some reason)

"In Water for Elephants there's a creepy scene where two prostitutes get the main character drunk and start to take off his pants and start forcing him to have sex with them. He then passes out and when he wakes up, they have shaved his genitals and made him look like a clown. They don't come out and say that they raped him, but it's IMPLIED. How disturbing that scene was." ~ Double Standard Rape: Female on Male, Literature.

 

[ProtoChimp]

I'm sorry what happened to female journalists at E3?

 

[ace_of_something]

Are you kidding me? Why not just CHANGE THE TITLES. Mind Rape is now Mind Violation or Mind Break. See how easy that was?

I'm sorry what happened to female journalists at E3?

I also had that thought.

 

[matrix3509]

I hope you all know that the Internet pretty much asked for this right? Not explicitly mind you, but the Internet as a whole has made it perfectly clear how incapable it is of discussing topics such as rape with any maturity. This is actually a pretty natural response, because apparently everything that has or will ever exist in the universe is sexist apparently, at least according to the Internet.

Also, I'm calling it now, "sexist/-ism" is officially the most over-used word on the Internet, taking the crown from previous title-holder "entitled", and before that, "hipster".

 

[Scars Unseen]

Not really. The biggest issue with TV Tropes as a writing tool is that it gives examples and associated themes, but no context. It becomes more of a discovery engine than anything. There's no context of how or why rape is used in a story, it's just a catalog of rape scenes for people who are into that.

That's not how TV Tropes works. I haven't read any of the tropes in question(wait. no, I do think I actually read Mind Rape at some point in time), but the entry itself explains what the trope is and gives comparison and contrast to other related tropes. The examples are just that: examples. If you want context, you go find one of the examples and read/watch/play it for yourself so you can see how the example fits within a larger work. That's what context means.

Granted, I could understand why one would be disinclined to go watch a bunch of rape scenes to get a feel how they are used in fiction. But if that's the case, you probably shouldn't use rape in your own fictional works.

 

[Darkmantle]

This is misguided, Removing the pages doesn't stop the trope from existing in popular culture and other media.

 

[him over there]

Not really. The biggest issue with TV Tropes as a writing tool is that it gives examples and associated themes, but no context. It becomes more of a discovery engine than anything. There's no context of how or why rape is used in a story, it's just a catalog of rape scenes for people who are into that.

That's not how TV Tropes works. I haven't read any of the tropes in question(wait. no, I do think I actually read Mind Rape at some point in time), but the entry itself explains what the trope is and gives comparison and contrast to other related tropes. The examples are just that: examples. If you want context, you go find one of the examples and read/watch/play it for yourself so you can see how the example fits within a larger work. That's what context means.

Granted, I could understand why one would be disinclined to go watch a bunch of rape scenes to get a feel how they are used in fiction. But if that's the case, you probably shouldn't use rape in your own fictional works.

I think he may have meant merit instead of context. Tvtropes says what a trope is and how it relates to others but never why it is used or the purpose behind it. There is little explanation towards tropes as literary functions, they say where it came from and what it is and how it's used but nothing about why. There is no purpose, only description.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I'm a bit curious as to why the escapist is defending Anita Sarkeesian so hard? You don't say describe the hitman trailer, or the Lara Croft thing, nor the booth babes or female journalists with a positive or negative context, but you throw in "disgusting reaction" just when mentioning Anita Sarkeesian's kickstarter. Why isn't it neutral like the other's why isn't it "the reaction to Anita Sarkeesian's...."? Or the reverse, the questionable Hitman trailer, the horrific treatment of Lara Croft, the mistreatment of female journalists?

^^snip^^

Because the reaction was indeed disgusting.
Her videos are much needed.
Her methods are questionable.
But the reaction she received was disgusting and - regardless of the preceeding provocation - proof of what she was referring to. Your police-analogy simply doesn't hold. Neither are random people on the Internet in any way authority, nor would the police beat you up and break your ribcage - unless of course, it happens in the US. That, however, is the equivalent of this massive flamewar against her.

You both have points. Describing the reaction to Sarkeesian's videos as disgusting is not only fairly accurate, but it doesn't explicitly reference whether Sarkeesian's videos are a good thing.

On the other hand... The escapist is hardly neutral when it comes to ethical issues concerning sexuality. Part of the reason for this is that the Escapist uses a very author-opinion-centered method of article writing, and the vast majority of the writers on the Escapist have an obviously liberal slant.

Most of the articles explicitly reference the author's opinion, and they generally tend to use a lot of personal pronouns. For example: instead of saying "The such-and-such organization said so-forth." They'll say something more like "If you're like me, you've been following [blank] with a moderate interest over the past month."

I actually don't mind it because it not only makes the articles more entertaining and laid-back, it also reminds you that you're getting your information from a person who has an opinion about the topic. Most news sources slant one way or the other, but at least the Escapist doesn't present itself as objective.

Unlike some news organizations that use catchphrases like "fair and balanced". *COUGH-FOXNEWS-COUGH* Oh, excuse me.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Not really. The biggest issue with TV Tropes as a writing tool is that it gives examples and associated themes, but no context. It becomes more of a discovery engine than anything. There's no context of how or why rape is used in a story, it's just a catalog of rape scenes for people who are into that.

That's not how TV Tropes works. I haven't read any of the tropes in question(wait. no, I do think I actually read Mind Rape at some point in time), but the entry itself explains what the trope is and gives comparison and contrast to other related tropes. The examples are just that: examples. If you want context, you go find one of the examples and read/watch/play it for yourself so you can see how the example fits within a larger work. That's what context means.

Granted, I could understand why one would be disinclined to go watch a bunch of rape scenes to get a feel how they are used in fiction. But if that's the case, you probably shouldn't use rape in your own fictional works.

I think he may have meant merit instead of context. Tvtropes says what a trope is and how it relates to others but never why it is used or the purpose behind it. There is little explanation towards tropes as literary functions, they say where it came from and what it is and how it's used but nothing about why. There is no purpose, only description.

Now I'm starting to question how many of you actually read TV Tropes. That isn't even remotely true. Let's take a couple of examples here:

From You All Meet in an Inn: [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouAllMeetInAnInn]

On the other hand, cliched as it may be, it really is a logical opener. Taverns are the center of social life in many cultures, making for a good place to meet new people, and food and drink are good for bonding with new acquaintances. Some people even use the trope deliberately as an invocation of gaming tradition. It's also quite easy to play for laughs, emphasizing the comedy potential of enjoying a few pints down at the pub and deciding to go out and slay a dragon with your new-found acquaintances.

From Red Shirt [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedShirt]

A Red Shirt is the Good Counterpart of Evil Minions and Mooks ? set filler for our heroes' side. Their purpose is almost exclusively to give the writers someone to kill who isn't a main character, although they can also serve as a Spear Carrier. They are used to show how the monster works, and demonstrate that it is indeed a deadly menace, without having to lose anyone important. Expect someone to say "He's dead, Jim", lament this "valued crew member's senseless death", and then promptly forget him. Security personnel in general fall victim to the worst shade of this trope, as most of the time their deaths aren't even acknowledged at all; according to Hollywood, you could walk into a bank and shoot a security guard right in the face without anyone making a fuss. If you shot anyone else afterward, the headline would just read "Bank Customers Killed".

Every trope page I've read has at least a short paragraph explaining how it is used in fiction. Not really sure what you're getting at.