Topic: What is going on with our clits?

I'm confused by the current system for tagging different sizes and shapes of clitoris. The current descriptions in the wiki don't seem to correspond to how the tags are aliased/implicated, and independently from that, there's no consistency in how the tags are actually used.

Currently, a clit tagged as "big" might be anywhere from slightly larger than a grain of rice to the size of a small penis, and there's no consistent difference between one that's only "big" and one that's large enough to count as "huge". There's also no distinction between realistic intersex/transmasc genitals and unrealistic fantasy hyperclits.

I don't know if it would be too presumptuous of me to make suggestions on how the tags should work, but whatever the system is, I just want it to be usable for filtering posts. Personally, I'd really just like a reliable way to distinguish between andromorphs that have female-looking vulvae and those that have noticeably masculinized genitalia, and I'm sure I'm not the only one with a relevant use case.

May I at least suggest that the size when "big" becomes "huge" should be about the size of the character's thumb? Not sure what to suggest for the shape since "t-dick" was aliased away, but I think there should at least be something.

kyuuuuu said:
I'm confused by the current system for tagging different sizes and shapes of clitoris. The current descriptions in the wiki don't seem to correspond to how the tags are aliased/implicated, and independently from that, there's no consistency in how the tags are actually used.

Currently, a clit tagged as "big" might be anywhere from slightly larger than a grain of rice to the size of a small penis, and there's no consistent difference between one that's only "big" and one that's large enough to count as "huge". There's also no distinction between realistic intersex/transmasc genitals and unrealistic fantasy hyperclits.

I don't know if it would be too presumptuous of me to make suggestions on how the tags should work, but whatever the system is, I just want it to be usable for filtering posts. Personally, I'd really just like a reliable way to distinguish between andromorphs that have female-looking vulvae and those that have noticeably masculinized genitalia, and I'm sure I'm not the only one with a relevant use case.

May I at least suggest that the size when "big" becomes "huge" should be about the size of the character's thumb? Not sure what to suggest for the shape since "t-dick" was aliased away, but I think there should at least be something.

To start with, could document it. Thumb numbers? Specifics can make it easier to work on.

alphamule said:
To start with, could document it. Thumb numbers? Specifics can make it easier to work on.

Sorry but I have no idea what you mean. Document what? What's a "thumb number"?

kyuuuuu said:
Sorry but I have no idea what you mean. Document what? What's a "thumb number"?

Collect some examples. Show them as thumbs with thumb #975452
post #975452

kyuuuuu said:
Sorry but I have no idea what you mean. Document what? What's a "thumb number"?

The "thumb number" here means the post's ID, which can be found on the link for the page itself or the "ID" field of the post's Information section.

Once you found the post's ID, you can put thumb # in front of it to turn it into a thumbnail when typed inside comments.

Problematic tags and corresponding wiki pages:

• enlarged clitoris: The description of enlarged clitoris states that "the specific size of the clitoris should be tagged separately using the respective big/huge/hyper tags", but it's already just aliased to big clitoris. Also, a bunch of other wiki pages link to enlarged clitoris as if it still exists as a separate tag.
• big clitoris: Would be fine, except that aliasing enlarged clitoris and t-dick to it, without having any other usable distinctions to take their place, has made specifying searches and blacklists difficult.
• huge clitoris: Description states that it's "larger than is anatomically possible", which crams a really wide range of sizes into the already broad big clitoris tag. I think hyper clitoris should suffice for the impossibly large.
• clit dick: Could either actually be a penis, or merely resemble one, but is not a penis, nor a pseudopenis, nor an enlarged clitoris, nor anything else. No aliases or implications. Not sure what the use case for this tag is supposed to be.
• enlarged clitoral glans & thick clitoris: These two seem redundant based on their descriptions, and I think it would make more sense if they were aliased into a single big clitoral glans tag to correspond to the existing big glans tag for penises.

Problematic tag usage and potential tagging projects:

• long clitoral glans: Would be very useful for filtering purposes, but rarely gets used.
• big clitoris/huge clitoris/hyper clitoris: These need more standardized size ranges. (Suggestion for characters of humanlike size and proportions: big≥2cm, huge≥4cm, hyper≥8cm). Many posts with these tags could also use the long clitoral glans and/or big clitoral glans tags.
• prehensile clitoral hood & prehensile clitoris: Many posts tagged with the former should be tagged with the latter instead, as well as long clitoral glans and at least huge clitoris.

Examples of different types of clits:

kyuuuuu said:
Not sure what to suggest for the shape since "t-dick" was aliased away, but I think there should at least be something.

Honestly it never should never have been aliased to 'big_clitoris'.

kyiiel said:
Honestly it never should never have been aliased to 'big_clitoris'.

that appears to be a glitched as these threads all seem to imply that it should be aliased to enlarged_clitoris.

topic #33028
topic #31722
topic #36197

Also as stated in these, the tag is pretty much is ether redundant or not usable under twys, the specific type of enlarged_clitoris is better found in combination with the trans_(lore) tags in searches. some of these are likely also tagged under pseudo-penis.

ryu_deacon said:
it should be aliased to enlarged_clitoris

That would be fine, but enlarged clitoris was (subsequently?) aliased to big clitoris, so there's no way to distinguish the different types at all.

I do agree with proper categorization of clitorises as they are woefully done, but I do have a mild objection to make about this:

kyuuuuu said:
[...]
Examples of different types of clits:

	big	huge	hyper
realistic	post #5237406	post #5370521	post #3164153
unrealistic	post #2358402	post #5364356	post #5081058

post #5237406
This is a fairly normal-sized, unaltered clitoris in an aroused state re: clitoral erections. It's smaller than your average t-dick. I don't believe this should be the face of "big".

post #5829066
This is where I'd lean closer to "big". It's clearly larger than normal but still within the realm of normalcy, without quite being "huge" as in #5370521.
Perhaps "big" should be used to describe a clitoris that is big enough to protrude past the labia majora (vulva) when not spread.

moonlit-comet said:
post #5237406
This is a fairly normal-sized, unaltered clitoris in an aroused state re: clitoral erections. It's smaller than your average t-dick. I don't believe this should be the face of "big".

How can you tell if it's erect? Also, it being smaller than the average t-dick was my intent, since how else are we supposed to tag clits that are bigger than average but still within typical female range?

post #5829066
This is where I'd lean closer to "big". It's clearly larger than normal but still within the realm of normalcy, without quite being "huge" as in #5370521.

What do you mean by "the realm of normalcy"? That drawing has somewhat stylized proportions, but you can clearly see that his clit is about the size of the thumb on the hand/paw next to it, which is objectively way bigger than average (see: http://www.newviewcampaign.org/userfiles/file/BJOG%2005-normal-genitalia.pdf). My point is that the average t-dick is off the charts compared with the typical female range, so if we want to have any distinction at all within that range, then t-dicks need to count as "huge".

Perhaps "big" should be used to describe a clitoris that is big enough to protrude past the labia majora (vulva) when not spread.

That depends as much on the size of the labia, though. And wouldn't that include #5237406 anyway?

kyuuuuu said:
How can you tell if it's erect?

I imagine because the glans is shown poking out of the clitoral hood.

Another note: I skimmed the hyper_clitoris tag and I'm noticing a lot of posts where it's not at all clear if what I'm seeing is actually that, a pseudopenis, or just a straight-up penis. This one for example

post #5640179

is clearly just a standard hyena pseudopenis and was even tagged as such, so was this a case of "better tag both because I can't tell which"? Is that a recommended practice, in general?

What is going on with our clits?

we're stealing your clits. and no, you can't have them back...

kyiiel said:
Honestly it never should never have been aliased to 'big_clitoris'.

I was just digging through the forum and I found topic #41844 from about 2 years ago where someone was previously trying to sort this issue out (incidentally this was where the enlarged clitoral glans tag came from), but their work was for nothing, because a year later topic #46200 aliased enlarged clitoris to big clitoris. I don't know how stuff works on the back end but it seems like an oversight for that to have been rubber stamped without any discussion.

Questions for anyone who knows how this works better than me: Would it be bad form to post a new BUR for undoing the enlarged -> big alias along with making the other changes I suggested? I'm thinking of also going through the wiki to edit the problematic pages and chipping away at poorly tagged posts as I find them, unless there are any objections.

The bulk update request #12822 is pending approval.

remove alias enlarged_clitoris (6) -> big_clitoris (5568)
create alias clit_dick (141) -> clit_dick_(disambiguation) (0)
create alias enlarged_clitoral_glans (296) -> big_clitoral_glans (44)
create alias thick_clitoris (298) -> big_clitoral_glans (44)

Reason: The current system for tagging different sizes and shapes of clitoris isn't very usable due to inconsistent tag usage and a series of disjointed attempts at standardization, which I'm now trying to fix. Of note for this BUR:

• There was previously a bunch of discussion about aliasing t-dick to enlarged_clitoris, which seems fair to me. But a while later, without any consideration for it having become a load-bearing distinction, enlarged_clitoris was aliased to big_clitoris. I don't care which tag we keep, but I do think we should've kept at least one.

• clit_dick makes no sense. If it's actually a penis, it should be tagged as such. If it isn't, then it's a pseudo-penis or a clitoris of some kind. This tag isn't used much so I can fix all of the posts myself.

• enlarged_clitoral_glansand thick_clitoris both seem to be intended as the clitoral equivalent of what big_glans is for penises.

kyuuuuu said:

• There was previously a bunch of discussion about aliasing t-dick to enlarged_clitoris, which seems fair to me. But a while later, without any consideration for it having become a load-bearing distinction, enlarged_clitoris was aliased to big_clitoris. I don't care which tag we keep, but I do think we should've kept at least one.

To me, this highlights an issue that likely resulted in these aliases in the first place. enlarged_clitoris has an identical meaning to big_clitoris (for something to be enlarged, it has to be bigger than normal, and says nothing about how it looks other than it's big). But t-dick would often be tagged for trans men who have a big clitoris that may or may not look significantly different to warrant a tagging distinction, conflating t-dick with enlarged_clitoris, while enlarged_clitoris is conflated with big_clitoris. Add in pseudo-penises, and it becomes even more confusing.

This entire topic is giving me a headache. LOL, so many terms that sound like pretty much the same thing (but not, if I understand right), and others that sound different but are actually the same thing? :shrugs:
I'll have to read this again, later when I can focus better.

I feel like the difficulty here is that people still have very different ideas of what a big clitoris looks like. It might be wise to judge not based on actual average anatomy, but on the average artistic depiction - while the Renamon example linked above (#5237406) is similar to plenty of medical illustrations, it is still larger than how clitorises are typically drawn in porn.

IMO, "huge_clitoris" should refer to clitorises that look like the character has taken testosterone/is intersex - this would include #5829066, like, that is clearly a t-dick.

I think the best example I've found as a poster child for "big_clitoris" would be this post - definitely larger than average, but also doesn't look like the character has taken testosterone:

post #6034262

Another suggestion could be to add some tags that categorize clitorises not solely based on size. One distinguishing factor I see between images in the general "clitoris" tag is whether or not the glans is visible, but there isn't any tag for "clitoral_glans", and thus no way to include or exclude a visible glans from searches.

I just had a discussion with somebody about this and was surprised to learn that we have a rather big hole in our tagging coverage in relation to this sort of thing.

"Big Clitoris" is just way too vague to cover all cases. There's a big difference between an otherwise unaltered clitoris that's really big...

post #5203607

...and cases like this where it's very visually clear that the clitoris has been altered (Either through in-universe surgery/hormone therapy, or through artistic intent) to make the clitoris appear more like a penis...

post #5707034 post #3987923

...I think they're such different cases that they shouldn't be handled by the same singular tag. I can very easily imagine scenarios where someone might want to search for one and not search for the other. And it's not a matter of simply adding "trans" to the terms because there's plenty of cases of trans men having the former example

post #5290515

sexygriffon said:
I just had a discussion with somebody about this and was surprised to learn that we have a rather big hole in our tagging coverage in relation to this sort of thing.

Yeah, the hole isn't even so much in this specific instance, but I'd reckon that female genitalia as a whole is rather lacking in comparison. For example, we have tags for frenulum, glans, foreskin and all that entails... knots and barbs and ridges yada yada, external and internal tags galore...but when I went to go about tagging this particular image that showed up in recent?

post #6087522

No clue. If there are appropriate tags for corpus cavernosum, crus clitorus, ect, I wouldn't even know how to go about searching for it.