Traits

Posted in

#2451 by beliar
2021-02-23 at 21:47
< report >
What qualifies as 'sex' between girls? Is this sex?
link
What do you think? Do I seriously need to sit you down and have a "birds and bees" talk with you? Are you sure you are old enough to visit this site? :-D

I think the question was asked before, though I don't remember how comprehensively it was answered. Oh well, here we go:
"When two or more people really like each other (read: they are horny), they come together and engage in lovemaking (read: they bang the shit out of each other). It is called sex (read: normally known as fucking)."

In all seriousness, I would define sex as the stimulation of another person's genitalia using your body and/or employing objects for help. So yes, cunnilingus is very much sex. I mean, it's literally called "oral sex". What more could you want? So, if the characters in question are engaging in carpet diving, then they are definitely not "not sexually involved"....
#2452 by barfboy
2021-02-23 at 21:56
< report >Perfect. I will adjust the other traits accordingly.

Edit: Oh, of course. Next question. Do I add Sex Involving Children because Kokoha is only 16?Last modified on 2021-02-23 at 22:08
#2453 by beliar
2021-02-23 at 22:21
< report >I'm pretty sure that Sex Involving Children is supposed to be used for sex with pre-teens. The description mentions that they either should look like shotas/lolis, or be explicitly stated to be in elementary school. 16 is not a child, but a teen, and Kokoha does not look like a kid either, so I don't think the trait applies.
#2454 by kei-tr
2021-02-25 at 03:23
< report >When I try to look information about a character's relationship with protagonist some (most?) of these traits such as very common ones like cousin or classmate only indicates that character shares said relationship with some character in same vn. Thus, as a result I can't get information I look because I can't get info about which characters shares that relationship and that makes those traits very unhelpful to people who didn't read that vn and know which people are related to each other (except for some rare cases like its already said in description, they share same last name or you can deduct from tags). So, I think it would be really helpful if these traits changed like tags. I mean, much like how Cousin Heroine become Protagonist's Cousin as a Heroine, cousin trait can become protagonist's cousin as well. Alternatively, these traits can divided two or three separate traits like cousin (protagonist), cousin (main character), cousin (others) if reduction of usage of these traits to only protagonist's relationships is not desired.

It might be my presumption but I think people probably will be more interested an info about a main character being protagonist's aunt or not rather than there is being an aunt character in a vn.Last modified on 2021-02-25 at 03:32
#2455 by zakashi
2021-02-25 at 03:40
< report >^ AniDB has something similar to that, but instead of "cousin of some random Main Character", it's "cousin of X", which is even better.
#2456 by kei-tr
2021-02-25 at 03:46
< report >Well yes, that's the desired result but unfortunately it might go beyond capabilities of current trait system.
#2457 by naiohoras
2021-02-25 at 03:58
< report >this problem has been discussed before in t3314.1994 and character relation would solve the problem. it's one of VNDB development wishlist d8.
#2458 by kei-tr
2021-02-25 at 04:22
< report >I see. Thanks for the heads up :)

it's a very low priority for me to change that

But if its that much of low priority and won't be addressed at the very least years to come (maybe never) then my suggestion still might be viable, its probably much more quicker/less problematic thing to do (albeit a little less accurate) and probably still will help lots of people.
#2459 by sy74kya
2021-03-16 at 00:13
< report >We need a personality trait for introverted/introvert. Seeing as that trait comes up quite a lot as far as I've seen.Last modified on 2021-03-16 at 00:13
#2460 by ninius
2021-03-16 at 00:58
< report >There's this one Reserved
#2461 by styjoy
2021-03-19 at 11:54
< report >Kuro-Gyaru is a trait, but the description clearly suits a tag.
#2462 by skorpiondeath
2021-03-21 at 03:13
< report >@styjoy: now fixed, maybe it can be improved.Last modified on 2021-03-21 at 03:14
#2463 by naiohoras
2021-03-21 at 12:17
< report >Former Celebrity and Veteran should be added as child traits of Retired.

In-Game Tutorial should be set as a technical tag.

Producer is currently described as "a manager who is in charge of coordinating idols" which overlaping with Idol Manager. perhaps we should either revise Producer's decription or just delete Idol Manager. I'm not sure what's best.
#2464 by blue
2021-03-24 at 01:00
< report >I am stopping by to suggest that the new Male Cleavage trait should be a Clothing trait. Cleavage only shows when a person wears their clothing in a more revealing way to enable visible cleavage (such as the upper parts of a shirt being unbuttoned or a kimono being worn loosely). Cleavage is also visible when a person wears a low neck top designed to make it visible (Shirt, blouse, etc.).

Even if a character's top is made transparent (whether by wetness or by design) to reveal their lower neck and chest area, that would still be an instance related more to Clothing than Body.
#2465 by mrkew
2021-03-25 at 10:29
< report >Is a Detective really a warrior? No I don't think so.
#2466 by beliar
2021-03-26 at 18:15
< report >
I am stopping by to suggest that the new Male Cleavage trait should be a Clothing trait.
I'm not sure I agree. The point of a cleavage is to get a glimpse of some skin not covered by the clothing. It's not about that beautiful V-shape of the clothing itself....
#2467 by blue
2021-03-30 at 02:00
< report >2466 - In my opinion, the trait tag does at least *look* better when categorized under Body, even if my line of reasoning may suggest the opposite. It is up to your discretion.

While I am here, I have a few more traits to ask about.

Medusa - Should this trait have “Gorgon” as an alias? That word does seem to be the base word describing this creature type, even if it is not the iconic name of Medusa herself or her sisters. Having this word as an alias could better help users searching for this type of monster outside of specific names.

Harpy - There are spelling errors in the description. It is possible that the second sentence was supposed to look like this instead: “Harpies can fly and for this reason, their bodies are usually light and small.” In the third sentence, aside from the typo in the word “aggressive”, I do wonder if Harpies can really be generalized to have cheerful personalities. Should this (at least in my opinion) dubious part be omitted from the description?

How would VNDB's Ojousama trait compare with its Noble trait? Should the former be placed as a more specific child trait under the latter? This could be considered since they share synonymous characteristics of being upper-class, having a high social status, possessing some form of wealth and privilege, along with the expectations that come with them, and these things being inherited because they are the son/daughter of an aristocratic family.Last modified on 2021-03-30 at 04:00
#2468 by mrkew
2021-03-30 at 07:59
< report >Nobility is an official status granted by the ruler. It's certainly not equal to simply being upper class.
#2469 by ninius
2021-03-30 at 17:58
< report >I think Hellhound should have an alias "demonic dog" or something.
#2470 by skorpiondeath
2021-03-30 at 19:12
< report >@blue, ninus, mrkew: done.

About Ojousama, mrkew is right. Beside that sharing characteristics doesn't make Ojousama fully compatible with Noble and putting Ojousama under Noble would mean that every Ojousama is a Noble wich is not true.
Is much better determine a particular character info and characteristic and mix Ojousama and Noble with Wealthy, Spoiled and so on in single character instances.
#2471 by tapestree
2021-04-03 at 05:59
< report >I want to talk about two sets of traits have been a bit problematic for years, and possible ways to address this: Sadist, Masochist, Dominant Partner, Submissive Partner.

Let me just clarify the actual, original definitions of sadist and masochist. Other medical associations may differ somewhat, but the APA defines sadism/masochism in the DSM-5 as sexual arousal from causing/experiencing/fantasizing about "extreme pain, humiliation, bondage, or torture" / "physical or mental suffering". It's NOT just physical pain. (For the record, I'm just referencing medical science because that's the historical source of the term. Obviously it's viewed as a fetish on VNDB.)

In fact, it's probably much more common for a sadist/masochist to be aroused from humiliation/situations than literal pain. That also fits with Japanese culture's colloquial impression of the words (often abbreviated as sado/maso/S/M). But in other parts of the world like America, maybe because sexual topics are more stigmatized, the mainstream perception has been reduced to the idea that sadism/masochism is all about pain.

Moving on to the traits themselves... Let's consider what the probable intent behind Dominant Partner and Submissive Partner is. These traits' synonyms are "Top" and "Bottom" which are terms used to refer to the person who takes the assertive role in sex. Seme and Uke would be the comparable Japanese terms, though the connotation differs a bit. Anyway, I'd say that's a good basis for a trait, and it's also distinct from Sadist/Masochist because they're about the role they choose (or which is chosen for them) not what their sexual fetishes are.

There are two minor problems, though. Taking Dominant Partner as an example: first, despite the intent I just described, the actual definition of these 2 traits revolves around this phrase: "This character has a dominant role in one or more BDSM scene". See what the problem is? As long as a girl is on top just *once*, she's a "dominant partner". Even if most of her scenes are vanilla or submissive, and the one "dominant" scene is largely comedic in nature. The way this trait is currently defined, it would be more accurate for it to be renamed as a sex act trait called "Sex in a Dominant Position".

Second, the term "Dominant Partner", while well-intended, is vague. Because as anyone who's familiar with BDSM knows, the term "dominant" can potentially refer to a personality trait, rather than an act. Also, it's easy to look at the word "partner" and think "oh, maybe the trait really is supposed to just refer to anybody who's ever on top even once". Because the word "partner" in a sexual context is just as readily associated with sexual partner (in a single encounter) as romantic/long-term partner.

Here are my recommendations for how these two pairs of traits could be improved.

1. Changes to (Role) Sadist and (Role) Masochist:
- Rename to (Personality) Sexually Dominant and (Personality) Sexually Submissive. Alternatively, if you want to stick with role instead of personality, you could have (Role) Sexual Dominant. The reason for the rename is that I believe people won't tag this trait correctly if they just see Sadist or Masochist as the main trait name. But it's possible that I'm misjudging how quickly people will adapt when they notice that Dominant and Submissive are aliases.
- Give them aliases Sadist, Sadism, Domme and Masochist, Masochism.
- Fix the definition of sadism/masochism to not be just about pain. The current overly short definition probably needs a bit of expansion and clarification.
- There is potential for what I'd consider mistagging, because sometimes writers play a bit loose with characterization in order to make the heroine appear sexually aroused during every sex scene. Therefore, I'd recommend adding a sentence like this to the descriptions: "This trait should NOT be applied to a character who just displays arousal while being swept up in the atmosphere/sexually stimulated in a dominant/submissive position, but who doesn't have any change in self-perception or behavior after the pleasure ends."
- It would theoretically be possible to keep the Sadist and Masochist traits intact as-is, and maybe rename them to be more clearly about pain, and make them a sub-trait of some brand new Sexually Dominant and Sexually Submissive traits. However, I believe that users have already often been interpreting these 2 traits as not just about pain, in spite of the trait descriptions. I personally don't have any interest in setting aside a distinct trait just to refer to a pain fetish, but if there are any users who do, that would still be an option at this point.
- I just want to point out that I'm not sure exactly when these traits were renamed from (Engages in) Sadism and (Engages in) Masochism, but I'm glad they were.

2. Changes to (Role) Dominant Partner and (Role) Submissive Partner. - What's critical is that the trait names be changed, in order to make the distinction from the above 2 traits (Sexually Dominant and Sexually Submissive) clear for users. There are 2 paths you can take.

Option 1: For what it's worth, I'll point out that it IS still possible to keep the current overly broad trait descriptions intact, by renaming these traits to "Sex in a Dominant/Submissive Position" and removing the aliases. But that's just my cynical observation, because I don't think that was the intention behind these traits. Normally you'll want to go with Option 2, which is...

Option 2:
- Rename to (Role) Top and (Role) Bottom. You could add "in Sexual Relationship" or "in Bed" to the trait name to make it clearer, but I think it's clear enough. Seme and Uke could be considered for main trait names, but I think they have too strong of a yaoi connotation in Japanese unless they are paired with another word like "Onna Seme" or "Otoko Uke" which are common Pixiv tags, so Seme and Uke are probably better suited as aliases.
- The trait description should be clarified to make it clear that this refers to two people in a sexual relationship where it's established between them that one partner takes on the dominant role in sex acts while the other partner takes on the submissive role.
- Dominant/Submissive Partner would be kept as aliases, so that people can find these traits easily.

To sum up what the traits would look like after these changes: if you have a character who's imprisoned and sexually trained, they'd be a Bottom but not necessary Sexually Submissive. Most cases of consensual BDSM would involve a Bottom character, a Top character, and at least 1 of the two is Sexually Dominant or Sexually Submissive (the other one might just be going along with it to match the others' hobbies--what high school boy MC wouldn't indulge his girlfriend's sexy fantasies?--though in many cases they do end up awakening to a fetish later). In a choukyou SLG where the protagonist's pre-game sex slave helps him train the other heroines, that character would be a Top, a Bottom, and Sexually Submissive. A character like Yuka from Gyakujoku Hiai ~Mistress~, a dominatrix who's captured at one point in the story, would be all 3 of a Top, a Bottom, and Sexually Dominant.
#2472 by beliar
2021-04-03 at 13:44
< report >I'm gonna post the verbatim excerpt from my private discussion with Skorpy, regarding the traits you have brought forward:

While I agree with some points Tapestree brought up regarding the traits, I don't agree with his solution to fixing them. Most importantly, I don't agree with his suggested renaming of the traits. I believe the names a currently ideal as they are - it's the descriptions than need to be tinkered with.

My proposal to change the trait descriptions to:

This character is a sadist.

A sadist is someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain on others. 'Pain' can refer both to the physical pain and mental/psychological torture.

The character in question should be frequently interested in performing sadistic acts on other characters during the sex scenes, but it's not necessary for them to display sadistic characteristics outside of the sexual situations, in order to be labeled a sadist.

Consensuality does not play a role in the application of the trait, and the character may inflict pain both on willing or unwilling partners.

----------

This character is a masochist.

Masochists are people who derive pleasure from having pain inflicted on themselves (by either themselves or by others). 'Pain' can refer both to the physical pain and mental/psychological torture.

The character in question should be frequently interested in having sadistic acts performed on them during the sex scenes, but it's not necessary for them to display masochistic characteristics outside of the sexual situations, in order to be labeled a masochist.

Consensuality does play a role in the application of the trait, and only the willing participants can be applied this trait.

****

Despite what Tapestree seems to have implied, Sadism/Masochism has nothing to do with Submission/Dominance, hence his proposed rename simply cannot be implemented. A character can easily be a Submissive Sadist, or a Dominant Masochist. One has nothing to do with the other. Submission/ Dominance, is about who takes charge in the relationship, while Sadism/Masochism is about application of pain to spice the sexual acts.

Just as an example, a Dominant but Masochistic mistress could give her submissive boy-toy a whip and say: "Whip me good, boy, and if I'm not satisfied with the job you do, I won't give you a release afterward!"

*****

I agree that currently Dominant Partner and Submissive Partner seem to imply that it's okay to use the trait, even if the characters are only dominant/submissive in a single scene, which doesn't seem right. Also, the description heavily leans into the bdsm shtick, which is not absolutely necessary. A schoolgirl might not be a professional domme, or even into bdsm, but she still could take charge in the relationship, and be dominant. Hence, I propose these changes to the description:

This character has a primarily dominant role regarding their sexual relationship(s) in the game.

While the term is prevalent in the BDSM community, where a dominant is the partner in a BDSM relationship or in a BDSM scene, who takes the active or controlling role over that of the submissive partner(s), it's not required for the character to belong to the BDSM community, or even to be interested in BDSM.

Don't use the trait, if the character only takes the dominant role for only a scene or two, and the other scenes are mostly vanilla.

Use the Switch trait instead, if a character takes both dominant and submissive roles during different sex scenes.

-------

This character has a primarily submissive role regarding their sexual relationship(s) in the game.

While the term is prevalent in the BDSM community, where a submissive takes the passive, receiving, or obedient role in a BDSM relationship or in a BDSM scene, it's not required for the character to belong to the BDSM community, or even to be interested in BDSM.

Don't use the trait, if the character only takes the submissive role for only a scene or two, and the other scenes are mostly vanilla.

Use the Switch trait instead, if a character takes both dominant and submissive roles during different sex scenes.

////////

I also don't agree with Tapestree's suggestion to make Top/Bottom the primary names for Submissive/Dominant. Submissive/Dominant are much better known/well established names than Top/Bottom, which are mostly only known in the bdsm community.
Last modified on 2021-04-03 at 18:01
#2473 by tapestree
2021-04-03 at 18:43
< report >Thanks for the detailed consideration. The trait descriptions you came up with indeed fix the previous obvious flaws. They're internally consistent and well phrased, too. You thought of a few things I didn't. That said... I still believe the trait names for Submissive/Dominant Partner should be changed, along with parts of your new trait descriptions for the Sadist and Masochist traits and ideally the trait names themselves.

The overall poor formulation of these traits is probably the #1 outstanding issue that has bothered for me years, so pardon me while I try a little longer to convince you. Let me re-quote what you said for my own reference.

Despite what Tapestree seems to have implied, Sadism/Masochism has nothing to do with Submission/Dominance, hence his proposed rename simply cannot be implemented. A character can easily be a Submissive Sadist, or a Dominant Masochist. One has nothing to do with the other. Submission/ Dominance, is about who takes charge in the relationship, while Sadism/Dominance is about application of pain to spice the sexual acts.
Well.. I spent part of my previous post referencing what objective definitions of sadism and masochism are, and briefly cited the DSM. Here you just say... "Sadism/Dominance is about application of pain". Per your trait description, pain includes "psychological torture". What I take issue with is that by trying to encompass all non-physical elements of sadomasochism with the abstract idea of "torture", you're implicitly excluding/brushing aside other valid elements, like humiliation and bondage. Humiliation isn't a form of psychological torture. Humiliation is, to quote the definition from Goodtherapy.org, "emotion brought about by feeling that one’s social status or public image has decreased ... the opposite of pride".

Sadomasochism is a term created by doctors to respond to their patients' concerns, so naturally it'll include any kink or behavior that could be considered negative, whether that meant physical violence or just being controlling. But in a place as kinky as VNDB, we can just call people with such feelings sexually submissive or sexually dominant: they're people with fetishes that incline them to want to be led or take the lead in sexual situations.

I realize that in English, the pop culture perception of sadomasochism in focused only on pain, so that's certainly a factor worthy of consideration. That said, many VNDB users know Japanese, and in Japanese VNs it's clear that a word like maso refers primarily to sexually submissive people. I already suspect that such users have applied these traits to cases beyond just the simple "pain" definition.

I feel like I can't emphasize this enough: being sexually submissive or sexually dominant in terms of personality/sexual inclination is a trait that I'm certain is much more interesting to the userbase than a trait that's basically a pain fetish viewed abstractly. Even if you disagree with everything else I've said, I hope you can separately explain why this trait can't simply exist--if not as a "refactor" of sadist/masochist, then as a parent trait of sadist/masochist.

Lastly, I also disagree with the way that your new definition adds sentences to try to make it into a proper "role" trait, when it was just an improperly categorized personality trait before. Admittedly, this trait has always been a mess, since it used to be listed under "engages in".

I also don't agree with Tapestree's suggestion to make Top/Bottom the primary names for Submissive/Dominant. Submissive/Dominant are much better known/well established names than Top/Bottom, which are mostly only known in the bdsm community.
I disagree with the way you (and VNDB, as it currently stands) use the words submissive and dominant. You intend for submissive/dominant to refer to the act of submitting to someone, or the act of dominating them, whereas I intend these words to refer to the tendency to behave submissively or dominantly. From my perspective, it's like if instead of (Personality) Protective you preferred (Role) Protector and didn't see the point of having a Protective trait.

The thing is, we're both right. You're more right, in a sense, because your definition is more popular: if you Google "what does it mean to be a sexual submissive" you're inevitably introduced to various "BDSM for dummies"-type explanations that describe a sexual relationship for the sake of illustration. They don't talk about the feelings that cause such roles to emerge, probably because that's too personal and philosophical for a "BDSM for dummies" which just exists to help some clueless person understand what their kinky boyfriend wants from them in bed.

But I'm also right... in that 2/4 of Urban Dictionary's definitions refer to submissive as a personality trait, rather than a role. I also know, unless these are false memories implanted in my head by space aliens, that I've talked to many people who said they're submissive or that they're "a" submissive, but that they're single right now. The term naturally submissive also shows up in some of those "BDSM for dummies" web articles I mentioned earlier, as a way to explain why people like to take on these roles in bed.

So anyway, the issue here is that I want to use these two terms in the replacement for the Sadist/Masochist traits' names (Sexually Submissive/Dominant) and that if I do so, it'd be a contradictory use of the word if the trait names Dominant/Submissive Partner are left as-is. That's why I'd like to rename them to Top and Bottom.

It's true that top and bottom are more obscure terms compared to common words like submissive partner, but that's why we have aliases: people type in what they want to add, and if they only see a trait with a different name, they look at the description and realize it's what they want. If there were better terms, I would absolutely pick them over top and bottom, but I can't think of them.

Just as an example, a Dominant but Masochistic mistress could give her submissive boy-toy a whip and say: "Whip me good, boy, and if I'm not satisfied with the job you do, I won't give you a release afterward!"
I understand. When you say she's "dominant but masochistic" you presumably mean that she's "[in a dominant position] but [loves to receive pain]" based on how you defined those words earlier. For example, maybe it's his wife who he asked to be the one to top him tonight, but instead she's using her role to express her endorphin-oriented pain fetish, or submissive urges, or whatever explanation you want.
#2474 by beliar
2021-04-03 at 19:29
< report >
"Sadism/Dominance is about application of pain"
That part was actually supposed to read Sadism/Masochism, but I think you got that it was a mistake on my part...

What I take issue with is that by trying to encompass all non-physical elements of sadomasochism with the abstract idea of "torture", you're implicitly excluding/brushing aside other valid elements, like humiliation and bondage. Humiliation isn't a form of psychological torture.
I'll give you that I did have the intention to include the practices of bondage and humiliation into the S/M descriptions, but couldn't get the wording right. 'Torture' is indeed not the best word to use, and I would probably go for 'anguish'. That said, the description can still be tinkered with.

That said, you want to broaden these traits a lot, which I completely disagree with. In my mind S/M should definitely be about about pain and anguish, and not about domination. I envision the traits used for people like Morimoto Leona (who is cruel and enjoys destroying people both physically and mentally) or Kendal Brown (who is a good person, but enjoys whipping her sexual partners). These both characters are also dominant, but they don't need to be for the Sadist trait to apply.

I realize that in English, the pop culture perception of sadomasochism in focused only on pain, so that's certainly a factor worthy of consideration. That said, many VNDB users know Japanese, and in Japanese VNs it's clear that a word like maso refers primarily to sexually submissive people. I already suspect that such users have applied these traits to cases beyond just the simple "pain" definition.
I completely disagree with the way JP VNs use the terms. In most cases the use is humorous and carries very little effect, and when it's used more seriously, it very poorly corresponds to the Western definitions. That said, VNDB is its own entity, and its definitions do not have to correspond to JP definitions exactly or at all.

I feel like I can't emphasize this enough: being sexually submissive or sexually dominant in terms of personality/sexual inclination is a trait that I'm certain is much more interesting to the userbase than a trait that's basically a pain fetish viewed abstractly.
I really disagree. I think our S/M traits are much more useful and interesting than some abstract "Sexually Submissive" thing that mixes unrelated concepts together and makes it so much harder to assign traits, and just opens the doors for edit wars. Your suggestions are extremely subjective, as I find it hard to visualize how to apply them, while the concept of enjoying pain/humiliation is a very clear cut concept that is easy to apply for any character.

I disagree with the way you (and VNDB, as it currently stands) use the words submissive and dominant. You intend for submissive/dominant to refer to the act of submitting to someone, or the act of dominating them, whereas I intend these words to refer to the tendency to behave submissively or dominantly.
Oh, my child! Your suggestion is ideal for the real life... but not for the world of fiction. Visual novels are fiction, thus it's only important what happens in them. We derive the character traits from the character actions. It's completely useless for a character to proclaim to be submissive, if we don't see him behaving in a submissive way. Thus the act of being submissive is the only thing that matters, and not the concept of being naturally submissive.

Yes, in the real world a person can say they are submissive, without performing submissive acts, but in fiction we must view such statements with a grain of salt. In a visual medium, like visual novels, what we see is what we get, thus if we see D/S acts being performed on screen, we obviously apply the traits based on that. So, yes, as far as visual novels go, the act of being submissive is more important than "behaving submissively", because the latter is almost always expressed through acts.

So, while I recognize some valid ideas you have provided, what you are trying is to broaden the descriptions of very visual tags, but you chose the completely wrong medium to engage in this. If this were a book db, there might be some merit due to possibility of the characters engaging in long discussions how they are D/S and what they like to do, without actually portraying those acts, but that's not how most VNs go. VNs are "what you ask is what you get" medium, thus the more precise and narrow definitions work much better.
#2475 by tapestree
2021-04-04 at 00:57
< report >I appreciate your candid response! I'll be a bit candid too, as I think I can't make progress unless I talk in terms of what I think your expectations for these traits are, and the contradictions I perceive in them.

I'll give you that I did have the intention to include the practices of bondage and humiliation into the S/M descriptions, but couldn't get the wording right. 'Torture' is indeed not the best word to use, and I would probably go for 'anguish'. That said, the description can still be tinkered with.
From what you're saying, you're actually okay with the trait descriptions of Sadist and Masochist including humiliation and bondage. Yet at the same time, you say that I'm the one who wishes to "broaden these traits a lot". How does suddenly adding humiliation and bondage to a trait that was previously defined as just "someone who obtains pleasure from inflicting pain on others" for many years, not count as broadening these traits a lot?

It's completely useless for a character to proclaim to be submissive, if we don't see him behaving in a submissive way.
By "behave in a submissive way" you mean in a sex scene? Then is it useless for a character to be labeled (Personality) Deredere unless they confess their love directly? Is it useless for a character to be labeled a (Personality) BL Fan unless they actually are shown buying doujinshi in the VN? Is it useless to label a character (Role) Homosexual unless they fuck someone of the same gender? According to where you've set the bar, would a guy like Takabayashi Daichi who's a self-proclaimed masochist have the Masochist trait removed? I can only think that doesn't match what people want from this trait.

I really disagree. I think our S/M traits are much more useful and interesting
For years, these traits only referred to pain. Now they're seemingly being expanded to include humiliation and bondage. Were they really so useful and interesting? If they were useful, I think that's only because there were no real alternatives. I personally view them as a mess from start to finish, bound to lead to misunderstandings because the Japanese words maso/sado which you say you "disagree" with are deeply woven into the VNs that our users play. Even now, when I pointed out problems in my last post, you responded with "the description can still be tinkered with". It's like these traits have affluenza, it really exhausts me...

than some abstract "Sexually Submissive" thing that mixes unrelated concepts together and makes it so much harder to assign traits, and just opens the doors for edit wars. Your suggestions are extremely subjective, as I find it hard to visualize how to apply them, while the concept of enjoying pain/humiliation is a very clear cut concept that is easy to apply for any character.
I don't think they're subjective... If you're willing to accept the idea of the Sexually Submissive/Dominant traits as long as the descriptions are formulated in a way that makes it as clear-cut as any other personality trait, or at least as clear-cut as (Role) Homosexual, to judge whether to apply them, I'll immediately come up with trait descriptions for your consideration.

If the traits I'm proposing had half as many chances as VNDB has given Sadist/Masochist over the years, there's no way they'd fail.

It's a fact that sadist/masochist are defined differently in Japanese than in English speakers' common perception of the words. This just leads to confusion and contradiction, because there are far more JP nukige than English language nukige on VNDB. That's exactly why I wanted to refactor these traits in a way that avoids using the terms in primary trait names, like what I did with the Collar trait back in 2016.