Subjective Sexist Keywords

Pretty much agree with Bradley. But I believe IMDb kinda turns the blind eye when it comes to stuff like that. But then again the whole keyword section is a bit confusing to me since almost everything is accepted. So perhaps I just don’t ”get it”.

Similar thing with the Parental Guide, which often serves to a guide to find ”naked people” or scenes in movies. It kinda works in two ways: ”Beware, naked people!” Or ”Yummy. Naked people”.

And here's one that is as bad as "legs-to-die-for": "nature's-gift-to-man"!

Come on, IMDb, act on this.  I submit deletions (which are accepted), and THEN they are reestablished!

I think there are only a few contributors causing this problem (including one who particularly seems to like Japanese schoolgirl films).

I don't mean to generalize, but they seem to come from an immature, stereotyped teenage boy attitude.  It's time to grow up.

Hi Bradley,

Thanks for your message.

What you're asking for is a fairly substantial change to our policy so it isn't something I can just say "Yes I agree and we're adding X to the banned keywords list". This thread has started an internal dialogue on our keywords policy, which we will update you on when a decision is made.

However I will caution that I cannot give you any schedules or timeframes for when our decision will be made so I can only ask for your patience at this time.

Regards,

Grayson

Thank you for the response.  It seems very reasonable.  Thanks.

There may also be one or two technical issues involved with this problem.

As these keywords are deleted, they then reappear, almost instaneously.

Also, when entering a keyword search, some of the titles listed as having a keyword DO NOT, in fact, have that particular keyword in their keyword list.  Example: "creamy-legs" lists such titles as 
 
 Ocean's Eight (2018)

 Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets(2017)

 Road House (1989)

but their keyword lists DO NOT include that particular keyword.

Curious.


P.S. Other titles where this has often happened include Mean Girls (2004) and It's a Disaster (2012)

Thankfully, "f##" and "n##" are NOT keywords, but why were "lesbo" and "dyke" acceptable?

Possibly the worst keyword emerging from this inquiry: "filthy-slut."

Oh, and there's also "harlot" and "wench" (very archaic) and "fluzzy" (apparently a misspelling of "floozy").

Misogyny seems rampant here. 

Hey Bradley,

Thanks again for your responses.

We're still looking into this and I expect we may be for some time. You may notice I've edited your post to remove the words that we have already banned as keywords. I realise you put them in your post to make a point, but they're banned from IMDb so they're also banned from Get Satisfaction. I've left the other keywords so that they can be added to our investigation.

I would also say that you should consider that IMDb also lists adult titles, where keywords that might seem inappropriate can be very useful for the fans of those titles.

Regards,

Grayson

I understand.  It seems, however, that Adult titles should follow the same guidelines when it comes to such sexist concerns.  "boobs," for example, should not be an acceptable keyword for Adult titles any more than it should not be acceptable for non-Adult titles.  To me, this is not about censorship, but about objectivity. That "##," however, may need to be used own some other words.

Another aspect of this problem:

I suspect that these keywords are being added and re-added by just a few contributors (or staffers?).  Can those people somehow be contacted to be made aware of this problem (and this discussion)?

Here are two titles, for example, where keywords under discussion were added or re-added just today:

 Hotori no Sakuko (2013)

  Playboy: Sex on the Beach (1997 Video)

To me, this is not about censorship, or "banning" certain words. BUT...

It is about the need to be objective rather than subjective.  Personal opinions, yours and mine, should not be expressed in keywords.  (Leave that to reviews.)

Every stand-alone "adjective" is a suspect keyword.  (I know there are reasonable exceptions.) Such questionable keywords can be interpreted as an individual opinion or evaluation or criticism of a title rather than a verifiable, corroborative and reportable aspect of the title..  What, for example, might be "inspirational" to one person may be "repulsive" to the next.

Adjectives are like ice cream.  There are so many different flavors, and we all have our personal favorite(s).

And here's another unbelievable keyword: "sight-for-sore-eyes"!

Cmon, IMDb! Act on this!  It can't be that hard, can it?

I personally don’t fully understand how ”sight-for-sore-eyes" could be a keyword. I mean if these type of cases are accepted (and I believe they are), pretty much everything goes.

And I’m not even talking about issues like ”sexism” here. Point is that the keyword should be something like ”airplane” or ”aircraft”, not ”fancy-airplane-in-the-sky”, ”airplanes-in-formation” or ”action-movie-on-a-airplane”.

But again I’m first to admit it that I don’t probably get it.

If female breasts are called "tits" in a movie, it's perfectly fine there is such a keyword. Same is true for all the other terms listed on here. If not, then vulgar terms can be excluded I guess.

As for the non-vulgar terms:
Honestly, every time I told a woman she has desirable legs, hot legs etc. she took it as a compliment. If you link them to Weinstein (and make the wrong conclusion that every positive comment on female physicality is a way of sexism or discrimination) and/or a desire to masturbate or generally see those as sexually motivated references, then that would be entirely your problem, Mr. Kent. That is about as accurate as saying "dead bod" should be omitted because many women think it's hot. The only perspective from which I could see removing them would make sense is that, as you say in the title, they are mostly subjective, but from this perspective we could also remove stuff like "pink hat" because some people could see it as magenta or even purple.

In short, as far as I am concerned, this is a perfect example of political correctness in the wrong spot: Leave all the way it is. Don't remove anything. Mind over matter. But I think i said this before when the OP created this exact same topic on another occasion before. No clue why he did again. It's the same nonsense and that becomes inevitably clear when he sets "thin legs" equal to "prick", which by the way can also be a term to call a person. And if Amon Göth is called a prick in the keywords, I am all for it.

Warm regards and stay healthy everybody.
Horst

Wishing you the best, Ed. OVID-19 cases in California have doubled in three days to over 1,000.  I live in Mid-Manhattan (germ central) in a state that has more cases than any other.  And I, also, am medically compromised. (My doctor insists that I wear a surgical mask when I go outside, although I, personally and subjectively, don't think it has any effect. I still wear the mask.)

So...

I think people are having a "semantic" -- a "knee-jerk" -- reaction to the words "sexism" and "politically correct," when my main point is that keywords should be objective and not duplicative.  I do not believe in censorship for adults when it comes to films, TV, video, etc., except for snuff-films (and the like), although I do think parents have the right to determine, as much as they can, what their children are exposed to.

But, keywords should be void of a contributor's personal evaluations or feelings. "desirable," "sexy," "thin," "legs-to-die-for," etc. are ALL subjective evaluations.  

And, keywords should not be synonyms for keywords that already exist and have set a precedent (unless that precedent changes, for some reason). For years, I have been advocating a Keyword Cross Reference Index that could help curtail such duplications.  Keywords have very low priority, however, so such a guide will probably never happen.

Also, I think that any sentient person must be aware of the changing times.  What was once acceptable may no longer he acceptable.  What is acceptable tomorrow may not be what is acceptable today.  I recently saw the 1933 King Kong with the 14-year-old son of friends of mine, and all he could talk about was how racist that film is.  One can reject change, if one wants, but that does not negate the change.  (Is the earth flat? Does gravity exist?  Does one plus one equal two?)

IMDb is the one that makes this final judgment.  They, for example, do not accept the f-word or the n-word as keywords, even though those words may be in a title's dialogue.  It is their right to do that. This is their website.  They are the final arbiter.

I will never give up on working to make the world a fairer, more truthful and more honest place.  You have the right to your opinion, and I, to mine.  And I do wish you well.