Topic: [REJECTED] bodytype_dominating_bodytype to bodytype_on_bodytype implication BUR

The bulk update request #2930 has been rejected.

Reason: A 25-entry BUR that covers all the body types under the *_dominating_* tags.

In order for these *_dominating_* pairings to exist, there must be both body types present in the image. This follows the implication pattern set by the *_penetrating_* tags. Note that domination may not imply that romantic or sexual activity is occurring, but I cannot think of a situation where it isn't practical to also add the equivalent bodytype_on_bodytype tags for searchability in domination scenarios.

See related for dominant_bodytype and submissive_bodytype: topic #34692 and topic #34693

EDIT: The bulk update request #2930 (forum #340971) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

*_on_* is intended for more sexual/intimate interactions. I don't think *_dominating_* needs to be sexual.

watsit said:
*_on_* is intended for more sexual/intimate interactions. I don't think *_dominating_* needs to be sexual.

I think it does. If we’re not using dominant and submissive to refer strictly to implicitly sexual interactions, what else is being included?

scaliespe said:
I think it does. If we’re not using dominant and submissive to refer strictly to implicitly sexual interactions, what else is being included?

Characters that are chained up without sexual overtones, or a character hypnotizing another without any indication of sex.

watsit said:
Characters that are chained up without sexual overtones, or a character hypnotizing another without any indication of sex.

Yeah, and I don’t think it’s particularly useful to include those. Domination and submission are primarily used for fetish content specifically, and these are cluttering the results with what I don’t expect anyone searching “dominant” is actually looking for.

scaliespe said:
Yeah, and I don’t think it’s particularly useful to include those. Domination and submission are primarily used for fetish content specifically, and these are cluttering the results with what I don’t expect anyone searching “dominant” is actually looking for.

Well, dominant and submissive search results are already extremely cluttered with posts that don't have any domination or submission in them. People are quite prone to tag it just because they feel the character is a dom or sub without them being visibly dominant or submissive. They'll even tag dominant or submissive when they as the viewer feel dominant or submissive to a depicted character, without such activity being visible.

But either way, I don't see why it has to be strictly fetish-focused content; transformation applies to posts that have transformations, regardless if it's fetish content or not, because someone who enjoys transformation art doesn't necessarily care if it's intended to be fetishistic. Similarly, a character being forced to submit is submissive, regardless if it's fetish content or not, and someone who likes or is looking for characters being submissive may not care if it's fetish content or not. In some cases, a future page may make it more fetishistic, as in the hypnosis example, but that second page shouldn't be influencing he first's tags as that violates TWYS.

watsit said:
But either way, I don't see why it has to be strictly fetish-focused content; transformation applies to posts that have transformations, regardless if it's fetish content or not, because someone who enjoys transformation art doesn't necessarily care if it's intended to be fetishistic. Similarly, a character being forced to submit is submissive, regardless if it's fetish content or not, and someone who likes or is looking for characters being submissive may not care if it's fetish content or not. In some cases, a future page may make it more fetishistic, as in the hypnosis example, but that second page shouldn't be influencing he first's tags as that violates TWYS.

For the second one, I just don’t think hypnosis should implicitly count as domination at all. There’s a separate hypnosis tag that covers that already. It should probably be limited to physical acts of domination, which may involve hypnosis at times.

As for the other one, I don’t see any character actively dominating the central character. Perhaps submissive by itself is fine, but it should not be tagged with ambiguous_dominating_male, for example, or human_dominating_anthro, so the male/ambiguous or human_on_anthro tags shouldn’t be applied anyway.

scaliespe said:
For the second one, I just don’t think hypnosis should implicitly count as domination at all.

Then pretend it's some other act, like having a rope thrown around them to capture and pull away. The point is an image doesn't have to depict anything sexual for a character to dominate another, while a second page can recontextualize the act by showing it was to make them a sex slave (but that second page shouldn't influence the tagging of the first, so despite the second page making it sexual domination, the first page doesn't show anything sexual but still has one character dominating another).

scaliespe said:
As for the other one, I don’t see any character actively dominating the central character. Perhaps submissive by itself is fine, but it should not be tagged with ambiguous_dominating_male, for example, or human_dominating_anthro, so the male/ambiguous or human_on_anthro tags shouldn’t be applied anyway.

You said "If we’re not using dominant and submissive to refer strictly to implicitly sexual interactions, what else is being included?", and I was showing examples of what dominant and submissive currently includes that weren't implicitly sexual. But regardless, then, pretend there was a human foot standing in front of and facing the chained up character, making it human_dominating_anthro without also being human_on_anthro.

watsit said:
Then pretend it's some other act, like having a rope thrown around them to capture and pull away. The point is an image doesn't have to depict anything sexual for a character to dominate another

I think this is my problem. “Dominate,” whether we like it or not, has taken on a fetishistic connotation due to BDSM. Fetish implies sexual content of some kind. The best possible use of dominant and submissive (on a site like this that is largely porn) would be for sexual power dynamics à la BDSM, and specifically excluding things like these which are more like a character exerting control over another without it being any kind of sexual power dynamic. At that point, we’re just diluting an otherwise perfectly good tag with essentially irrelevant results because it’s “technically domination” under some dictionary definition of the word that doesn’t take into account the fact that it’s primary use is for BDSM and related sexual power dynamics. Likewise, human does not imply ape because, while technically true, it would be extremely useless to dilute the ape tag with a bunch of humans. At some point, practical utility of a tag should take precedence over technical correctness, and I think de-sexualizing dominant and submissive is precisely one case where the tag’s practical utility would be damaged, and nothing of value would be added.

And besides, I think all the non-fetishistic situations you bring up can already be perfectly covered by either bound or restrained, both of which are kept distinctly separate from bondage and bdsm. A character bound in chains doesn’t really mean that they are “submissive,” after all. That’s quite a stretch of that word in any case.

scaliespe said:
The best possible use of dominant and submissive (on a site like this that is largely porn) would be for sexual power dynamics à la BDSM, and specifically excluding things like these which are more like a character exerting control over another without it being any kind of sexual power dynamic. At that point, we’re just diluting an otherwise perfectly good tag with essentially irrelevant results because it’s “technically domination” under some dictionary definition of the word that doesn’t take into account the fact that it’s primary use is for BDSM and related sexual power dynamics.

I don't agree. If someone is into domination, and even if they're into the fetish/sexual angle of it, that doesn't mean they don't also like the non-sexual angle too. Some may not be into the non-sexual side, but some will be. I'm into transformation stuff, which has a sizable fetish element to it, and I like the fetish aspect too, but I would very much not want to see the transformation-related tag stripped of all non-fetish transformations because some only care about it being a sexual fetish.

scaliespe said:
And besides, I think all the non-fetishistic situations you bring up can already be perfectly covered by either bound or restrained, both of which are kept distinctly separate from bondage and bdsm.

So are we going to need bodytype_restraining_bodytype and gender_restraining_gender tags for non-sexual domination? That would make a mess of things and cause unnecessary problems for people that don't care about domination being sexual or not.

scaliespe said:
A character bound in chains doesn’t really mean that they are “submissive,” after all. That’s quite a stretch of that word in any case.

A character that's submitting to another (even by force) is submissive. That's kind of the point of it. We don't tag characters having a submissive personality, and it's not a synonym for "bottom", "wanting dick", or "slutty". A submissive character is one that has their autonomy significantly restricted, just as a dominant character is one asserting their will upon another.

can you show any examples posts with a x_dominating_y tag that wouldn't also deserve a paring tag?

darryus said:
can you show any examples posts with a x_dominating_y tag that wouldn't also deserve a paring tag?

post #2457942
An example from a quick search. There's some that have x_dominating_y and x_on_y, where I don't think the latter is actually appropriate, like post #3115444 (the lizardguy's hips being turned to the side away from the human's backside makes it seem like it's trying to avoid looking overtly sexual, and the general scene looks more like the beginning of a bar brawl; it's only with the parent page that it turns out to be sexual). And who knows how many more there would be if x_dominating_y was more widely used. Like post #3024589 I think would qualify for humanoid_dominating_anthro, but wouldn't be humanoid_on_anthro.

I don't agree. If someone is into domination, and even if they're into the fetish/sexual angle of it, that doesn't mean they don't also like the non-sexual angle too. Some may not be into the non-sexual side, but some will be. I'm into transformation stuff, which has a sizable fetish element to it, and I like the fetish aspect too, but I would very much not want to see the transformation-related tag stripped of all non-fetish transformations because some only care about it being a sexual fetish.

I think this is rather different from transformation due to the nature of domination in general. Transformation is transformation regardless of the fetishized aspect - domination, as I understand it to be used on this site, is short for sexual domination - a term used in BDSM. The dominant and submissive wiki pages even say this explicitly. It’s shortened at least in part because “sexually_dominant_male,” “sexually_submissive_female,” and “male_sexually_dominating_female” are unnecessarily unwieldy. But these are in quite a different league than “domination” used in a general sense. In a general sense, the term “domination” can refer to things as broad as the job of a boss or a political leader. “Dominate” simply means to govern, rule, or command. Its use regarding physically restraining someone comes from BDSM and is, I think, best limited to that domain. Even the examples you gave I think mostly at least imply some kind of sexual interaction. Or, as someone who’s seen plenty of BDSM art - “I can tell where this is going.”

So are we going to need bodytype_restraining_bodytype and gender_restraining_gender tags for non-sexual domination? That would make a mess of things and cause unnecessary problems for people that don't care about domination being sexual or not.

That might actually be useful. Restraining can also be included in sexual domination, but plenty of domination scenarios don’t include restraining. Characters can be restrained for other reasons, like vore, or… wrestling. In any case, we already distinguish between restrained and bound, and between bound and bondage on the basis of sexual content, so I don’t see why this wouldn’t work the same.

A character that's submitting to another (even by force) is submissive. That's kind of the point of it. We don't tag characters having a submissive personality, and it's not a synonym for "bottom", "wanting dick", or "slutty". A submissive character is one that has their autonomy significantly restricted, just as a dominant character is one asserting their will upon another.

I don’t think that every kind of restraint or restriction can possibly count as domination. This, again, is why I insist on there at least being the implication of some kind of sexual or sexually charged interaction. Otherwise, you’ll end up having to tag things like these as human_dominating_feral:
post #3273013 post #3273236
The human has the feral on a leash. The feral’s movement is restricted (can’t run away). The feral is subject to the human’s will, essentially. But is this really domination? No. So, where do we draw the line? I say it’s when it crosses into BDSM territory, at least slightly, which is always implicitly sexual. Anything beyond that seems to go against the entire purpose of tagging dominant and submissive to begin with, or extending the tag’s reach beyond where it’s useful.

The bulk update request #2930 (forum #340971) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

The bulk update request #5985 is active.

Reason: Nah, this one was right the first time. The dominant wiki page explicitly states that it is only supposed to be used in sexual contexts, therefore *_on_* inherently applies.

The two linked topics in the OP are also still pending.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5985 (forum #383522) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #5985 (forum #383522) has been approved by @slyroon.