Posted under General
https://e621.net/posts/6274306 The post in question.
There clearly is cunnilingus happening, and it is properly tagged, but for some reason Fellatio is among the tags and can't be removed, since it's listed as implied? Is there a way to remove the implied tag, since this is clearly wrong.
Hm, looking at spitroast cunnilingus perhaps this implication should be removed.
regsmutt said:
Hm, looking at spitroast cunnilingus perhaps this implication should be removed.
By apparent site definition spitroast requires the mouth to be penetrated, so it seems more like that's a case of rogue tagging rather than an implication conflict.
Edit: I also found bisexual_spitroast which doesn't have a wiki or implications yet, but is sometimes added along with spitroast with cunnilingus involved.
Updated
magnuseffect said:
By apparent site definition spitroast requires the mouth to be penetrated, so it seems more like that's a case of rogue tagging rather than an implication conflict.Edit: I also found bisexual_spitroast which doesn't have a wiki or implications yet, but is sometimes added along with spitroast with cunnilingus involved.
I don't really think it's rogue tagging here. I think what's happening is 'this looks like a spitroast but with cunnilingus' and there isn't a tag for that. For what it's worth 'bisexual spitroast' doesn't sound like a good solution because it just sounds like mixed genders as opposed to all male.
The problem with fellatio seems to be resolved but I see bisexual_male get removed and added again on that post.
yummytummysketties said:
The problem with fellatio seems to be resolved but I see bisexual_male get removed and added again on that post.
bisexual_male should probably be invalidated/aliased away. We don't tag characters sexuality, as one may think "bisexual male" refers to, and a male that interacts with both a female and another male can be found with bisexual male/male male/female (and similar for bisexual_female).
regsmutt said:
Hm, looking at spitroast cunnilingus perhaps this implication should be removed.
Maybe we could have 'penetrative_spitroast' and 'cunnilingus_spitrpast' each with their own implications, making spitroast an umbrella for both?
furrin_gok said:
Maybe we could have 'penetrative_spitroast' and 'cunnilingus_spitrpast' each with their own implications, making spitroast an umbrella for both?
I'm not sure. There's also variations involving tribadism:
post #4337181
Rather than breaking it up into every variation of penises/vulvas/genital slits, it could just be a pose/position tag with no additional penetration required and people can include/exclude what specifics they want.
watsit said:
bisexual_male should probably be invalidated/aliased away. We don't tag characters sexuality, as one may think "bisexual male" refers to, and a male that interacts with both a female and another male can be found with bisexual male/male male/female (and similar for bisexual_female).
...huh. If we have 'bisexual' (and 'bisexual_male') for images with both straight and gay sex, it's strange that we don't have any variant of 'homosexual' for images with only gay sex
apparently there used to be 'male_only', but it was inexplicably aliased to 'male', and 'gay_sex' which was aliased to 'sex'. i guess you could individually go - literally every single other gender related tag every time you feel like searching for that? that's kind of silly for one of the most common sexualities here though
listlesssky said:
...huh. If we have 'bisexual' (and 'bisexual_male') for images with both straight and gay sex, it's strange that we don't have any variant of 'homosexual' for images with only gay sex
"bisexual male" and "bisexual female" sound like tags that were made to get around us not tagging sexual orientation, and I would very strongly argue to get rid of bisexual
I am very sure it causes far more tagging issues than it could ever solve, the tag has been removed 3600 times, (at least 2200 of which were in the last 5 years), an amount which I'm sure should actually be higher
Not to mention that it arbitrarily only includes male and female while excluding both of the other sets of masculine/feminine genders
donovan_dmc said:
"bisexual male" and "bisexual female" sound like tags that were made to get around us not tagging sexual orientation, and I would very strongly argue to get rid of bisexual, I am very sure it causes far more tagging issues than it could ever solve (the tag has been removed 3600 times, an amount which I'm sure should actually be higher)
I wouldn't be opposed to renaming bisexual, but I do think there should be a tag for the thing it currently describes (a character engaging with characters of both genders) since simply searching for both male/male and male/female brings up characters doing those things separately, and does not allow specifying for MFF vs MMF.
In general it kinda blows my mind that so many tags for combos and certain gender pairings have been nuked. I have seen the proposal to revalidate some of them, though it stalled...
As someone who often looks for bisexual stuff, bisexual_male and bisexual_female are very useful tags and I very rarely see them mistagged. Using variations of bisexual male/male male/female & female/female to find the specific mmf or ffm arrangement youre looking for is a lot harder with many more 'false positives' fo lack of a better term.
Edit: in the interest of transparency, I was the one who re-added it it the linked post. Though I don't generally look at tag history, so I didn't realized it had been previously removed. I think it would be a good idea to discuss and come to an agreement on if we keep the tags and specific definitions of them to end what seems to be something of a wife ranging shadow tag war
Updated
lust_demon_laz said:
As someone who often looks for bisexual stuff, bisexual_male and bisexual_female are very useful tags and I very rarely see them mistagged. Using variations of bisexual male/male male/female & female/female to find the specific mmf or ffm arrangement youre looking for is a lot harder with many more 'false positives' fo lack of a better term.Edit: in the interest of transparency, I was the one who re-added it it the linked post. Though I don't generally look at tag history, so I didn't realized it had been previously removed. I think it would be a good idea to discuss and come to an agreement on if we keep the tags and specific definitions of them to end what seems to be something of a wife ranging shadow tag war
I'm curious at to if bisexual male_focus (or female_focus) would be close enough to what you're looking for with those tags.
yummytummysketties said:
I'm curious at to if bisexual male_focus (or female_focus) would be close enough to what you're looking for with those tags.
Unfortunately those combos mostly return fals positives (and female_focus & male_focus seem to be woefully undertagged)
regsmutt said:
Rather than breaking it up into every variation of penises/vulvas/genital slits, it could just be a pose/position tag with no additional penetration required and people can include/exclude what specifics they want.
Maybe semantics but it would have to be something outside position tagging
post #6273958 is not the same pose/position as post #6201786
... It's clearly something there's some desire for but I'm not sure if there's precedent for having a tag for... "a character having one character's genitals* against their face and another character's genitals* against their anogenital region." And then there's spitroast tentacles where that wouldn't apply anyway.
It seems that there are two separate types of spitroast tagging that are not going to be tag-compatible with one another:
If you take the penetration out of the spitroast and make it about groin-contact, all those other posts become invalid for the tag.
I agree with the argument that a spitroast can be irrumatio and therefore not always fellatio, though, aside from the arguments around whether it requires oral penetration.
*... Under the spitroast requires penetration argument I assume being penetrated by tongues would count, which would not be valid for this hypothetical tag.
