Content Violations Review: Podcast.My Dad Wrote A Porno

The page mostly tropes the porno itself rather than the podcast talking about it.

Bumping for feedback

I mean, troping about sex doesn't itself make a work a content violation, otherwise we wouldn't have Sex Tropes. This work is evidently just a Sex Comedy that makes fun of porn tropes rather than actually trying to pass as being the real deal — there's a live HBO special for cryin' out loud.

Based on the trope page, most of the sex seems played either for laughs or for Parental Sexuality Squick (usually both, from the looks of things). My vote is keep.

OP here. The thing is, the porno being discussed in the podcast is a real book, and would not pass our policy by virtue of, well, being a porno. The current page for the podcast is more focused on troping the book itself than the podcast.

Then it needs a Short Term Projects cleanup, not a 5P review.

Is there even enough narrative left to trope, if you remove the tropes pertaining to the Porno itself?

Should have said my opinion earlier, but Belinda Blinked (the book the podcast is about) seems to have a plot albeit of the "random bullshit go" kind. It's not a work primarily concerned with sexual arousal and it's safe to keep.

Should we make a page for it than?

In which case, we can just make it a redirect to the podcast, as the contents would overlap to the point of redundancy anyway.

I don't see any point in making a separate page for the book from this thread, but if anyone cares enough, they can knock themselves out. For the page itself, keep it and cut any examples that are purely about the book instead of the podcast.

Edited by StarSword on May 5th 2024 at 6:27:34 AM

I've listened to this and, while the majority of it is reading graphic descriptions of sex, it's hard to consider it pornographic as the hosts are laughing about/ridiculing a lot of the 'sexy' detail. Since it's basically an audiobook reading with commentary, of course a lot of tropes will apply to the book.

Edited by Assassin-sensei on May 5th 2024 at 9:04:10 AM

As I understand, they meant cutting anything about the book that wasn't brought up in the podcast; if the podcast doesn't comment on it, neither should we.

I'm casting my final vote: do not trope the book, only list examples covered in the podcast.

Is the podcast even tropeworthy?

Based on Animu's statement, full keep without restrictions.

See, I'm not concerned about the book being against policy. I'm concerned about it being troped on a page that is not about the book

clean, but in the "misuse" cleanup sense. that is, cut the examples that aren't about the podcast.

other than that this doesn't seem like much of a CV issue.

Edited by worldwidewoomy on May 5th 2024 at 4:28:18 AM

Yeah. As far as we (as in, CV) are concerned, it's fine.

Keep, but make sure examples about the podcast are kept and not the book.

Which returns us to the question of whether or not it's tropeworthy.

A quick search through the example section shows it appears to have the bare minimum number of examples that are troping the hosts' commentary instead of the book: I counted maybe five.

Edited by StarSword on May 5th 2024 at 6:39:15 AM

Ok it's tropeworthy.

I think I'm changing my vote to: redirect the current page to Literature/BelindaBlinked, then split that page into 2 sections, one for the book itself and one for the podcast