Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #12503 has been rejected.
create alias bound_male (215) -> bound (202400)
create alias bound_female (193) -> bound (202400)
Reason: I don't think those gendered tags are necessary.
EDIT: The bulk update request #12503 (forum #470793) has been rejected by @cabo27judy.
Updated
I think there is value in gendered variants for fetish tags. If you're into e.g. dominatrix stuff, just searching male bound isn't going to get you 100% bound males.
beholding said:
I think there is value in gendered variants for fetish tags. If you're into e.g. dominatrix stuff, just searching male bound isn't going to get you 100% bound males.
99%+ of them should also be submissive_male
dba_afish said:
99%+ of them should also be submissive_male
99% is way too high, even considered as hyperbole. Just because someone is tied up doesn't mean they're enjoying it...
dba_afish said:
99%+ of them should also be submissive_male
That would improve accuracy, but the dominant and submissive tags are a mess of mistags and overtags, so I wouldn't rely on them.
Fundamentally, these tags do serve an actual utility, and I don't see what's gained by removing them.
donkdewd said:
99% is way too high, even considered as hyperbole. Just because someone is tied up doesn't mean they're enjoying it...
submission dosn't necessitate enjoyment, I don't think.
from what I understand of their use and the wikis, the tags are meant for a character in the submissive position in any dom/sub or BDSM situation, regardless of consent/enjoyment/whatever. in nearly all scenarios I can imagine a character who is bound is the de facto submissive in the scenario (exceptions being, like, reversals or situations featuring both parties being in different levels of bondage, maybe).
dba_afish said:
submission dosn't necessitate enjoyment, I don't think. [SNIP]
I take your point, but I still disagree. Not every situation where a character is "bound" is a straightforward BDSM situation. You also have characters that have been captured or enslaved, and characters that are either frustrated with the situation (like a humorous scenario where a normally dominant / top character is reluctantly engaging in a role-reversal situation, which you acknowledge) or even actively resisting it. I would never use the "submissive" tags for those images, myself.
The scenarios I'm describing are actually a lot of the uses of "bound", if you browse through the e621 archives. We have more than 100,000 images (more that 50% of the images tagged "bound") where neither "submissive", "submissive_male" or "submissive_female" has been added as a tag. In some of those situations, I'm sure you could argue one or more of those tags should apply, but there are many other images where I feel it does not. Just my POV.
To bring it back to this topic - I haven't voted yet because I'm on the fence. "Bound" is not something I am into in particular, so I'd like it if more people could weigh in on either side. The male / female versions of the tag have been used about 300 times, which is about the threshold where I think gendered tags are underused enough to eliminate, but I'd like to see if anyone else wants to stick up for these tags before voting.
dba_afish said:
99%+ of them should also be submissive_male
It's 30.3%. That took me just 15s to check btw
I agree with you on the use of 'submissive', the use of the dom/sub tags aren't restricted to BDSM, in fact even the wiki mention things like bullying.
But the usefulness of tags like bound_male is mostly in images with >2 characters, if you have say more than one sub. And like I understand things like gender_verb_gender can be controversial tags but bound_male and bound_female are fairly simple?
zigaton said:
It's 30.3%. That took me just 15s to check btw
They meant that if the male is bound, then in 99% of cases that male would also be eligible for the submissive male tag.
Looping back to this after a week of voting. I feel like 4 down votes out of 10 votes is indication this is controversial, so I'm voting nay. The gendered tags probably help some people find what they are looking for (even though they are underused). I'm going to go back through my own uploads and add the gendered tags when they apply. If they are eliminated down the road, c'est la vie.
donkdewd said:
... The gendered tags probably help some people find what they are looking for (even though they are underused)...
At the same time they encourage users to create more combination tags... Which already resulted in the creation of abominations like the hourglass_figured_* tags, which got aliased away several months ago ( topic #46384 ). I'm still waiting for the wide_hipped_* tags to also get aliased away (the BURs for those are still pending).
My opinion is still that the small use these tags have for group pictures is nullified by the tag bloat and encouragement to create more of such combination tags.
demonthedarkhound said:
At the same time they encourage users to create more combination tags... Which already resulted in the creation of abominations like the hourglass_figured_* tags, which got aliased away several months ago ( topic #46384 ). I'm still waiting for the wide_hipped_* tags to also get aliased away (the BURs for those are still pending).My opinion is still that the small use these tags have for group pictures is nullified by the tag bloat and encouragement to create more of such combination tags.
Slippery slope is not a good argument. Some combo tags are valid and some aren't. We can judge that on a case-by-case basis.
The bulk update request #12562 is pending approval.
create implication bound_male (215) -> bound (202400)
create implication bound_male (215) -> male (3094948)
create implication bound_female (193) -> bound (202400)
create implication bound_female (193) -> female (3090613)
create implication bound_intersex (0) -> bound (202400)
create implication bound_intersex (0) -> intersex (307920)
create implication bound_maleherm (0) -> bound_intersex (0)
create implication bound_maleherm (0) -> maleherm (7692)
create implication bound_herm (0) -> bound_intersex (0)
create implication bound_herm (0) -> herm (31175)
create implication bound_andromorph (0) -> bound_intersex (0)
create implication bound_andromorph (0) -> andromorph (31040)
create implication bound_gynomorph (0) -> bound_intersex (0)
create implication bound_gynomorph (0) -> gynomorph (241186)
create implication bound_ambiguous (0) -> bound (202400)
create implication bound_ambiguous (0) -> ambiguous_gender (395076)
Reason: Well, the people voting no now constitute a majority. Let's put the alternate version here.
The bulk update request #12503 (forum #470793) has been rejected by @cabo27judy.
snpthecat said:
Reason: Well, the people voting no now constitute a majority. Let's put the alternate version here.
Male and Female are the only ones in use. I'd only create those to prevent tag bloat until there is demand for the others. Though if it is policy to have to create all of the tags at once, then I'd vote yes.
kyiiel said:
Male and Female are the only ones in use. I'd only create those to prevent tag bloat until there is demand for the others. Though if it is policy to have to create all of the tags at once, then I'd vote yes.
If one gets made there's no point in not making all six just to make them at some later date after they get one or two uses
donovan_dmc said:
If one gets made there's no point in not making all six just to make them at some later date after they get one or two uses
That's fair.
@cabo27judy You don't need to reject your BUR if someone else makes one that takes the opposite stance.
In fact, it's valuable to keep both around to measure the overall community opinion of both options.
