Genjar
Former Staff
1 month ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 260
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

Marcopolo22 said:
opinion on the sackless tag: should it function as a universal tag like clothing or transformation, or should it be restricted anthro and feral mammalian characters only?

I think it should be restricted to species that normally have external balls. Tagging it for other things, such as feral male dolphins and snakes is just pointless, like tagging nude for ferals.

So maybe just tag it if the character has a sheath or external penis, but not for cloacas and genital slits?


Genjar said:
I think it should be restricted to species that normally have external balls. Tagging it for other things, such as feral male dolphins and snakes is just pointless, like tagging nude for ferals.

So maybe just tag it if the character has a sheath or external penis, but not for cloacas and genital slits?

it do agree it pointless for some animal, but then there fantasy animals that would be included with their real counter part. for example dragon wether feral or anthro can have both a slit and balls and if it the latter it can look humanoid enough to to become a subjective debate. same goes for mermaids and pokemon which the artist used their imagination to create.

Genjar
Former Staff
1 month ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 260
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

Marcopolo22 said:
it do agree it pointless for some animal, but then there fantasy animals that would be included with their real counter part. for example dragon wether feral or anthro can have both a slit and balls

Then they get the balls tag. I don't see the problem. Tagging genital slits and cloacas as 'sackless' by default is nothing but clutter, especially for the former since cloacas tend to be ambiguous_gender if there's no visible penis.

It's definitely the kind of tag that should've been discussed before you started tagging it. Tagging it only for creatures that could reasonably be expected to have balls (so no cloacas or genital_slits) could make it viable, but I'm not sure about that. Even with strict guidelines for tagging it, this might be too subjective and end up invalidated just like no_balls was.


Marcopolo22 said:
opinion on the sackless tag: should it function as a universal tag like clothing or transformation, or should it be restricted to non_reptilian characters only?

Honestly it'd probably be best as a universal tag. Not all reptilian (or cetacean, or elephant, or avian, or marine, or pinniped, or...) are drawn in a way where being anatomically correctly sackless makes sense visually. If they're drawn with humanoid junk without genital slits/cloaca/other indication that it's supposed to represent how the real animal is, it would be silly to not tag them as sackless just because.

Genjar
Former Staff
1 month ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 260
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

regsmutt said:
Honestly it'd probably be best as a universal tag. Not all reptilian (or cetacean, or elephant, or avian, or marine, or pinniped, or...) are drawn in a way where being anatomically correctly sackless makes sense visually. If they're drawn with humanoid junk without genital slits/cloaca/other indication that it's supposed to represent how the real animal is, it would be silly to not tag them as sackless just because.

Yeah, the type of genitals should be what matters, not the species. For example: an anthro bird with external humanoid penis but no balls should get the tag, whereas an anthro bird with a cloaca should not.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
1 month ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 19
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

I have little opinion, outside of the random fact that some feral critters are sackless due to being neutered. My cat so lovingly loves reminding me of this, especially right after I wake up.

Not sure how that should play into things, but it sure is a thing.

Genjar
Former Staff
1 month ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 260
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

SnowWolf said:
I have little opinion, outside of the random fact that some feral critters are sackless due to being neutered. My cat so lovingly loves reminding me of this, especially right after I wake up.

Not sure how that should play into things, but it sure is a thing.

That's currently tagged as eunuch, and tends to get mistagged often. It's supposed to only apply if the testicles have been removed, but often gets tagged for characters who simply lack external ones (such as scalies).

So that's an another problem, those tags are likely to end up mixed up. :/


Genjar said:
That's currently tagged as eunuch, and tends to get mistagged often. It's supposed to only apply if the testicles have been removed, but often gets tagged for characters who simply lack external ones (such as scalies).

So that's an another problem, those tags are likely to end up mixed up. :/

Not really:you just need to look for the parent post or check if there stitching in the area in question. I was planning to review it later after this.Plus it like mentioning something specific like eye color for eyes. it seem to me we should exclude all feral that are anatomically correct (except mammals) and anthro that has slits/cloaca.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
1 month ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 19
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

Genjar said:
That's currently tagged as eunuch, and tends to get mistagged often. It's supposed to only apply if the testicles have been removed, but often gets tagged for characters who simply lack external ones (such as scalies).

So that's an another problem, those tags are likely to end up mixed up. :/

Well. That was a series of tags I coulda gone without knowing about. Thank you :)

There does seem to be a fair bit of overlap, honestly.

▼ random whining

The order of that 'see also' list bugs me so much. It should be something more like:

  • nullo - A character with both the penis and testicles removed.
    • nullification - The gory process of removing both the penis and testicles.
  • eunuch - A character that has had their testicles removed ("neutered").
    • castration - The gory process of removing the testicles. ("neutering")
  • penectomy - Both the gory removal of the penis and the resulting lack of having a penis.
  • featureless_crotch - A character with no evidence of genitals having ever been present.

Maybe with Penectomy at the top. Also why on EARTH would you put the gore AND the results in the same tag?
T_T

Oh man! Apparently nullification is also for female genital mutilation... that is, sewing the labia shut. W.. why would you DO that?

I'd... think about fixing it, (no pun intended) but I'd rather not. This is Not My Fetish. This is one of the few things that actually makes me feel ill.

I could see there being a ...difference, or clarification between, say, "this character has no balls" and "this character has had his balls removed".. a tag for indicating a scar or stitches in that area, but... I"m not gonna give it much more thought.


If things have healed with no visible scars sackless vs eunuch becomes tag what you know. Granted, visibility of scars is part of the fetish for most people, but some like more realism or else have it as a feature that happened long ago in the character's life. Castration scars also might not be where you'd expect them to be, like if someone is drawing a realistic neutered dog the incision scar will be in front of where the testicles would be.


Is there a way to browse images that used to, but no longer have a specific tag?


regarding the "sackless" tag would that also apply to images like theses that have the balls trimmed away from view ? Also should the entire crotch be visible to use the tag or will it also apply to images taken from a angle that hides the balls from view but were a sheath or external penis is still visible?


Darou said:
regarding the "sackless" tag would that also apply to images like theses that have the balls trimmed away from view ? Also should the entire crotch be visible to use the tag or will it also apply to images taken from a angle that hides the balls from view but were a sheath or external penis is still visible?

I'd say no generally. Using it for angles where a character's balls are pulling a schrodinger's cat might turn the tag into the equivalent of -balls. There might be some wiggle-room, especially when you factor in anatomical error.


I would say no. Though there tons of post that are Missing the balls tag when it was shown in the image, the sackless tag should only be used if it visually evident.reasons is it simply false advertisement when users are expecting this when we don't even know if it true. if the angle or clothing leaves it ambiguous then leave it blank. that way we're being precise in tagging.


Split_form

Its wiki mentions really obvious examples, but what about characters with a human/humanoid upper half (with human-like skin) and a furred lower half, for example? Satyrs at least have hooves that make them look "more different" than a basic human top and anthro bottom.

I tagged these with split_form so far:

▼ Click to collapse

katt_(breath_of_fire)
animal_humanoid belt breasts breath_of_fire chaps clothing cowboy cowboy_hat dogyd eyebrows featureless_crotch feline female fur gloves gradient_background green_eyes grey_background gun handgun hat holding_object holding_weapon humanoid katt_(breath_of_fire) looking_aside mammal midriff navel open_mouth pants ranged_weapon revolver simple_background solo split_form tiger tiger_humanoid video_games weapon

Rating: Safe
Score: 17
User: Syjo
Date: June 02, 2017

satyrs, okay moving along
animal_humanoid athletic bracelet brown_eyes chain clothed clothing collar cub demon furgonomics furry-specific_piercing goth hooves horn humanoid jewelry kiske_7key looking_at_viewer male melee_weapon membranous_wings necktie piercing pointy_ears polearm safety_piercing safety_pin satyr simple_background skull solo spade_tail spiked_bracelet spikes split_form tail_piercing tattoo topless trident weapon white_background wing_piercing wingclaws wings young

Rating: Safe
Score: 7
User: msc
Date: June 20, 2008

split wolf/werewolf humanoid, not so bad (idk about those species tags)

Now these three from the same artist...

▼ Click to collapse

animal_humanoid biceps brown_eyes bulge claws clothed clothing demon ear_piercing fist hi_res horn humanoid kiske_7key looking_at_viewer male membranous_wings muscular muscular_male pecs piercing pointy_ears simple_background solo spade_tail split_form topless white_background wingclaws wings young

Rating: Safe
Score: 6
User: msc
Date: December 25, 2008

I don't know what's going on with the legs. This was tagged bulge and he appears to have a real spade_tail, yet it looks like he's wearing some kind of shoes and that leg fur is the same color as his hair. The torso has skin, but the legs have what looks like scales, fur over top the scales, and a bulge... It could be explained as clothing or some weird "body transformation magic" or both. I think maybe this character wasn't planned out well enough, so split_form was my best compromise. TWYS doesn't provide enough information.

Now, the artist also drew this around the same time:

I radically reinterpreted this from how it was tagged as an animal_humanoid to a human wearing animal skins, which makes more sense all-around. All the fur on him can be animal skins, and rope does indeed appear to support the "boots". I did what I could with the tags, but I didn't see much that describes this.

animal_humanoid athletic avian avian_humanoid bare_chest brown_eyes clothed clothing cloud cloudscape feathered_wings feathers feet flying footwear front_view full-length_portrait humanoid humanoid_feet kiske_7key loincloth looking_at_viewer male navel nipples outside plantigrade portrait pose sandals sky solo split_form winged_humanoid wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 1
User: msc
Date: May 15, 2010

I want to tag this next. I'm reasonably certain this is actually split_form and not just clothing or only a winged_humanoid. The feathers/fur covers his legs but not his feet, his arms but not his hands, and his back at least around his wings.

Also, how should the species and body type of split_form characters be tagged? "Centaur should not be tagged with feral or human", so does that logic also mean no split_form character can be human? As for humanoid, biped split_forms, I would think having lots of human skin prevents a character from being an anthro, so humanoid and only humanoid should be correct for most or all split_form bipeds. Like what I said about unrecognizable creatures (aliens and monsters) being feral by default if they are neither anthro nor humanoid, I think this specific class of bipedal creature I've been describing should be humanoid by default because they fail stricter classifications.

I'm kind of frustrated and want a second opinion or reality check lol

After reading the forums some, I see split_form is still an open discussion. I do think it's the right idea, just needs to be standardized.

Genjar
Former Staff
26 days ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 260
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

abadbird said:
Also, how should the species and body type of split_form characters be tagged? "Centaur should not be tagged with feral or human", so does that logic also mean no split_form character can be human?

Correct. Only fully human characters get the human tag, with a couple of exceptions such as humans in mid-transformation (human_to_anthro etc). This is mostly for blacklisting and site relevance purposes (makes it easy to say that 'humans are irrelevant to site').

Keeping them separate also makes it possible to search for combos such as: human centaur and human animal_humanoid. Those would not work if half-humans such as centaurs were tagged as human.

As for humanoid, biped split_forms, I would think having lots of human skin prevents a character from being an anthro, so humanoid and only humanoid should be correct for most or all split_form bipeds.


Also true. Animal_humanoid and such are tagged as humanoid, not anthro. This includes bipeds such as most of the satyrs (unless both halves are anthro: post #1301098, etc).

Like what I said about unrecognizable creatures (aliens and monsters) being feral by default if they are neither anthro nor humanoid, I think this specific class of bipedal creature I've been describing should be humanoid by default because they fail stricter classifications.

There's some monsters that don't fall into humanoid, anthro or feral, but as for split_form: yes, we could treat it as a humanoid subtag with a few exceptions.

I suppose we could make it strictly humanoid-only, but then that'd exclude taurs and some other characters (e.g. post #766672), and I think that'd end up being too confusing.

I'm short on time, so I only skimmed the thumbs. But what you've tagged as split_form seems fine to me. The upper/lower torso split is the main point of the tag, minor features such as horns on the humanoid half should not stop it from being tagged.


Quick question.

Should this post get the "take_your_pick" tag?


UnusualParadox said:
Quick question.

Should this post get the "take_your_pick" tag?

Yeah.

I see take_your_pick as a tag describing presenting + duo/group (or public_use + duo/group). The more demure tags on the presenting spectrum, seductive, inviting, and teasing, should also qualify. In that post, I consider poppy_(lol) and the (untagged?) character to her right at the very least presenting. I see some of the others as inviting. That should satisfy the wiki definition of take_your_pick.

Speaking generally, I do think a person searching for take_your_pick situations would want to see posts like that, regardless of implied consent from presenting spectrum tags.

I see we have take_your_pick, harem, and gangbang. Feels like one tag too many. harem is likely the odd tag out. Can probably shuffle its contents to take_your_pick, gangbang, and concubine (for the Arabic harem motif), then disambiguate to those tags.

Genjar said:
There's some monsters that don't fall into humanoid, anthro or feral, but as for split_form: yes, we could treat it as a humanoid subtag with a few exceptions.

I suppose we could make it strictly humanoid-only, but then that'd exclude taurs and some other characters (e.g. post #766672), and I think that'd end up being too confusing.

1. Which monsters aren't anthro, humanoid, or feral?

2. I mean, split_biped/split_form_biped could be made an implicated subset. biped could finally say something worth saying since many currently tagged split_form humanoids are not bipeds. I'd still keep a general split_form bucket to put all the split body creatures giving taggers grief. Keep them all in one place, then start breaking them down into like groups. Right now, I'm thinking of a leg counting scheme: split_biped, split_multi-legged, split_legless... something like that.

Genjar
Former Staff
25 days ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 260
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

abadbird said:
1. Which monsters aren't anthro, humanoid, or feral?

Formless goo_creatures, many tentacle_monsters, eldritch_horrors, any monstrous animate_inanimates and penis_creatures, etc. Whole lot of the weird stuff.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
25 days ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 19
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

abadbird said:
I see we have take_your_pick, harem, and gangbang. Feels like one tag too many. harem is likely the odd tag out. Can probably shuffle its contents to take_your_pick, gangbang, and concubine (for the Arabic harem motif), then disambiguate to those tags.

I disagree, each of these covers a different situation.

take_your_pick seems to be a line up of options available for the viewer to pick from-- which sexy Eevee-evolution do you want to touch first?
gangbang is a group of characters all having sex with one character--The Sylveon is having sex with all of the other eeveelutions.

Harem is a closely related concept, but is different. Harem takes it's name from the classical 'harem anime... it's (typically) a male surrounded by (typically, fawning, affectionate) pretty ladies. Or the other way around. Sex is not required. these are Harem posts:

5_fingers alaks anthro big_breasts breasts cleavage clothed clothing digital_media_(artwork) evie eyelashes female glowing group harem hi_res jewelry looking_at_viewer male mammal midriff moonblossom navel purple_eyes red_eyes samantha sashatf smile zera_(zerarick)

Rating: Safe
Score: 6
User: SexyTime_ThrowAway
Date: May 29, 2017 2016 anthro brown_eyes canine clothed clothing collar covering covering_breasts disney feline female fennec finnick flat_chested fox fully_clothed fur group harem jailbird lion lying male mammal nude orange_eyes orange_fur red_eyes shock_collar simple_background zoodystopia zootopia

Rating: Safe
Score: 38
User: Shingen
Date: March 14, 2016

Harem also has a problem in that it's tagged for a style of clothing, a setting AND a theme. (thankfully, we have harem_outfit. we could something like harem_theme or harem_setting..)

Concubine is a very specific sort of character role. And is NOT exclusive to the arabian-thematic. it's anyone that a man has sex with who he's not married to. Technically. and yes, a harem is full of concubines, but not all concubines are in a harem.

The biggest problem is that concubine-ness is a social-thing. it's very hard to express with any sort of visual signals. Of the 9 concubine pictures on the site, ther'es only 2 that might MAYBE be a concubine. One of them is basically a pretty character who's wearing harem gear. the other has some victorian-french-ish imagery with some emphasis on master-servant slavery roles.

Concubine should probably be eliminated, as a tag.


Genjar said:
Formless goo_creatures, many tentacle_monsters, eldritch_horrors, any monstrous animate_inanimates and penis_creatures, etc. Whole lot of the weird stuff.

My tl;dr is I see all those unknown entities as feral by default if they don't look like something more recognizable. With an evolved understanding, even the machine or magical life of animate_inanimates can be seem as feral. When you don't recognize a creature's anatomy, it's a dangerous wild animal (i.e., a feral). When you finally understand it, it's still an animal (i.e., a feral) that might not be dangerous. I don't agree with the feral wiki's limited definition, and I don't see the harm in expanding feral to include the outliers as long as each creature also gets a more specific species tag.

The fear is people will complain if they see eldritch_horrors and gelatinous_cubes "mixed in" with classic wolves and "classic" pikachus when they search feral, even though it's a faulty expectation... That has to be it. But the standard response is "use your blacklist", so there's no problem for posts that are properly tagged.

▼ harem vs concubine

In popular media, I've only ever seen harem and concubine refer to the same thing; or rather, members of the harem were either already concubines or their sexual autonomy outside the harem was deferred to one or a few people, affording them similar power as a concubine. However, a concubine usually holds different status, lower or higher, in the household than does a blood-related family member. Concubines can belong to a harem along with non-concubine slaves, servants, and family members. Fortunate concubines can and did marry their masters while others members of the harem may have been married off.

We can say "concubines" and "harems" had different roles in different cultures, so prescribing one meaning as correct will fail. Best to choose a meaning for each tag and stick with it. My position is simple. You can't look at what's been tagged harem -rating:s and tell me they're not also concubines. They very probably are, especially the sexually submissive characters, and concubine does not need the presence of a master to justify the tag. The prospective concubine just needs to look the part. Also, a group of one gender fawning over an individual of another gender in entertainment media is stereotypically seen as a harem today, with strong sexual connotations. They are all but concubines if they aren't yet.

Here's low-hanging fruit. It's actually probably derogatory (i.e., racist) to refer to anyone in vaguely Arabic "harem" attire, in the modern era, as a concubine, like calling a girl in revealing Western clothing a slut. Some may see it as praise. Likewise, there's no compelling reason to label showy Arabic attire as harem beyond ignorant assumptions. No one's going to fact-check clothing for period-correctness, so this point becomes moot anyway.

Egh. I'm probably done with that topic. The time I just spent doesn't justify foreseeable benefit.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
25 days ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 19
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

abadbird said:
In popular media, I've only ever seen harem and concubine refer to the same thing; or rather, members of the harem were either already concubines or their sexual autonomy outside the harem was deferred to one or a few people, affording them similar power as a concubine. However, a concubine usually holds different status, lower or higher, in the household than does a blood-related family member. Concubines can belong to a harem along with non-concubine slaves, servants, and family members. Fortunate concubines can and did marry their masters while others members of the harem may have been married off.

Respectfully... Some of your definitions are a bit off..

▼ Pedantry about 'Harem' and 'concubine'

A harem, traditionally defined, is a domestic space for the women in a Muslim household that is forbidden from all but close male relations. There are *similar* ideas in many other Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures, but "Harem" is an Arabic word.

The structure of the Harem, and associated monogamy/polygamy varies depending on local customs, status, and the individual family. It is, in all literal technicality, a place where women can go and be safe.

In the rest of the world, we typically understand a Harem as being one specific, special sort of thing--the Harem of a very rich and powerful man, full of his wives and concubines. Yes, his wives too. This "room of beautiful women," though, also potentially includes children, adult unmarried daughters, female servants, and Aunt Gertie who never got married.

The "room of sexy women, laying around, waiting for sex, who's only work is to dance most erotically" is a fantasy, likely originating from several European Renaissance paintings, and thus have influenced the perception of what has always been, a very foreign land to westerners.

That said, today, when we refer to a Harem, we, colloquially, refer to that room full of beautiful women. It's an anime/manga genre. The dorky young man suddenly finds out that there are a buncha lady who want to be with him.

A Concubine, on the other hand, is a social role, like 'wife' or 'girlfriend.'

A concubine is someone who is in a sexual relationship with someone they are not married to. Generally with the idea that it's a longer term relationship, and he cares for her.

An Arabian price collecting a beautiful woman for his Harem? Concubine. The King's mistress? Concubine. If Romeo and Juliette had, instead of exploding in a cloud of distress and miscommunication, started to see each other on the downlow? Concubine. Businessman regularly boinking his secretary? Concubine. When I was living with my husband before we got married? Concubine~.

Except that we generally use 'concubine' to refer to historical concubines, while preferring more modern words like mistress, girlfriend or fiancé when referring to real people we encounter, unless we think they're primitive or something.

A concubine can vary from being a sexual slave to being a most valuable and appreciated treasure nearly as important as an official wife, etc etc. If not more so. After all--The queen was chosen for him for the country and for politics, but the concubine was the one he chose for himself.

The one thing a concubine isn't is a *wife*.

We can say "concubines" and "harems" had different roles in different cultures, so prescribing one meaning as correct will fail. Best to choose a meaning for each tag and stick with it.

I thought I stated my position rather clearly. I think we should *get rid* of Harem, and replace it with a series of more clearly defined tags:

Harem_outfit - for the clothing:
anthro belly_dancer ben_wootten bikini clothed clothing compression_artifacts dancing demon dungeons_&_dragons feline female full-length_portrait harem_outfit lion mammal official_art pathfinder portrait rakshasa simple_background skimpy solo swimsuit white_background

Rating: Safe
Score: 12
User: Axelthefox
Date: October 28, 2017

Harem Setting/location - for a place of cushions, luxury, and extravagance:

Harem Theme/Male_with_Harem/Harem of Women (or female_with_harem, intersex, whatever) - for an individual with many who are focused on his well-being and pleasure:

As for concubine, I don't believe that it is something that can be *easily* determined via looking. Two random characters could be married or not. We don't know. marriage could even not exist in their world. we don't know. Just like we don't assume that two characters fucking are boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever.

My position is simple. You can't look at what's been tagged harem -rating:s and tell me they're not also concubines.

▼ I can.

Because they very well *could* be married. Harems were, as a reminder, made up of wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, children and more, as well as concubines.

- This actually looks like he's being raped--perhaps captured and being 'used' for some religious ceremony. They are not concubines.
- These girls appear to be purchasable. Maybe they've already been bought, maybe they will be soon, but this looks more like a market for slaves, not a harem. And while, yes, they could BECOME concubines, right now, they're not.
- To be honest, this just looks like happy polygamy here.
- I'm pretty sure this is a locker room
- I'm pretty sure this is a stripclub or something. She's showing off the goods, but I don't think she's for sale.

They very probably are, especially the sexually submissive characters, and concubine does not need the presence of a master to justify the tag. The prospective concubine just needs to look the part.

So, what exactly does a concubine look like then?

Also, a group of one gender fawning over an individual of another gender in entertainment media is stereotypically seen as a harem today, with strong sexual connotations. They are all but concubines if they aren't yet.

Or they could be wives. Or maybe no one ever gets married in this world. Or maybe they're slaves.

Here's low-hanging fruit. It's actually probably derogatory (i.e., racist) to refer to anyone in vaguely Arabic "harem" attire, in the modern era, as a concubine, like calling a girl in revealing Western clothing a slut. Some may see it as praise.

Okay, aside of tags for a sec: 99.9% of women will not see slut as praise. If a woman calls herself that, then it might be okay if you do, but just because some people get off on bloodletting and knife play doesn't mean that they don't mind if 'just anyone' cuts them. Consensual dirty talk is okay. Calling a girl on the street a slut is not going to earn you any friends.

Alright, back to porn-land: the 'harem outfit' type of clothing is only vaguely based on 'real clothing'... but the pants, at least, were based on Middle Eastern styles-- after being passed through a Parisian Clothing designer (a particularly famous one, actually).

Likewise, there's no compelling reason to label showy Arabic attire as harem beyond ignorant assumptions. No one's going to fact-check clothing for period-correctness, so this point becomes moot anyway.

Well, I see the point you're getting at--I do!

Just, when you say/imply that everyone who thinks of concubines will think of harems, you're wrong. I actually think of Chinese concubines first and foremost. *shrugs* When I think of the arabian setting, I think of "his harem of many wives."

Egh. I'm probably done with that topic. The time I just spent doesn't justify foreseeable benefit.

I feel ya. No shame in that. It was nice talking with you on it. :)

Honestly, I think that Harem is just a mess and needs to be cleaned up. :)

(looking at the wiki, it's kinda funny. -- the first wiki version says "this is for the location, not the outfit'. 4 years later, someone says "this could be the outfit, OR the setting." 4 years later, someone else came along and edited it to say "one character with multiple partners OR the outfit!" no wonder it's a mess...)

(Should I start another thread about all this or shall we discuss it here, everyone else?)


Counting characters in thought_bubbles and photos.

Do the character counts of these ever combine with the character count of the "main scene" containing them? Is there a simple rule or condition I should consider when determining character count tag(s) for those posts?

When I asked myself if such "picture-in-picture" characters should be counted at all, I reasoned that if they are important to the overall post they are properly tagged and therefore should be counted.

▼ examples

I've done these so far:

1. disembodied_hand holding photo

I viewed this as solo + solo. I didn't feel multiple_images was appropriate because I wouldn't say the main scene and photo are "unrelated". Clearly a first_person_view post, which I missed tagging, where the viewer-character is "looking at" the held photo.

2. thought_bubble + fantasizing

I viewed this as duo + solo_focus because the main "scene" and thought bubble are strongly related if not the same scene. If a character in one universe controls a character in another--even an imaginary one--then they are "related".

3. thought_bubble + memory

Adding some basic tags to posts. Edit reason does not allow enough characters for this clusterfuck.

I tagged this as miles masturbating to the memory of seeing sonic and sally (thought_bubble, multiple_scenes, memory, caught, duo, missionary_position), and I also tagged the sleeping miles in the lower right corner (cutaway, sleeping, on_front, after_masturbation, solo, multiple_poses). That's how I interpreted this picture.

My comment already has -1 :), but no one has touched the tags since me. I missed solo_focus. Because the thought bubble shows a past event in a different setting, I thought multiple_scenes was appropriate and that multiple_scenes should almost or never combine characters into a single count.

Up very next in my queue are:

A mix of 1 and 2. I'm asking myself, if a photo is being used directly by a character in the main scene, should the character from the photo be counted separately? There is an interaction between them, after all. Ultimately, I don't think still images that can't respond to a post's living world should have their tags mixed with those for the living world. So solo + solo.


Do non-living things designed after creatures count toward character count?

Are they inanimate_objects?

Should a post featuring only such non-living things be tagged zero_pictured?

So far, I've seen statues and sex_dolls:

I tagged that sex doll zero_pictured recently, and I'm tagging the statues now. May as well ask.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
12 days ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 19
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

Adding on to the characters-in-thought-bubbles, how do we count, like, pictures of a character at different stages of life, or different forms or outfits? it's all one character, so is it solo?

▼ Examples

abstract_background animal_humanoid bag boots brown_eyes clothed clothing dav-19 dress female fluffy fluffy_tail footwear fox_humanoid fox_tail front_view fully_clothed hair happy humanoid leaves leggings legwear mammal multiple_poses orange_hair patricia_(dav-19) poncho pose shirt smile solo standing

Rating: Safe
Score: 9
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 10, 2018 abstract_background age_progression alternate_species animal_humanoid armor bangage belt boots breasts charizard charmander charmeleon clothed clothing crouching dav-19 female flaming_tail footwear front_view fully_clothed gauntlets gloves green_eyes hair holding_object holding_weapon hood humanoid jumping leather leather_armor legwear loincloth looking_at_viewer melee_weapon membranous_wings multiple_poses nintendo orange_theme pauldron pokemon_humanoid pokéball pokémon pokémon_(species) pose red_hair solo spiked_armor spread_wings standing sword tights tunic unconvincing_armor video_games weapon wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 7
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 09, 2018 armor belt black_hair black_scales cape chinese_text clothing dress fangs feathering female feral feral_to_human fur grey_hair grin hair hair_bun hand_on_hip helmet hi_res holding_object holding_weapon horn human juanmao1997 kirin mammal melee_weapon multiple_images multiple_poses polearm pose red_eyes red_scales red_sclera robe scales sheathed_weapon smile solo spear sword taur text transformation translation_request weapon yellow_eyes

Rating: Safe
Score: 4
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 04, 2018

... as for statues and sexdolls, *I'd* say count them as a duo and solo respectively--they might not be a PERSON, but they're clearly the focus of the image and meant to be appreciated as such.

But tha'ts just my opinion. ... which does raise the wuestion of how one woudl tag someone making use of a sex doll.. hm.. I dunno.

Genjar
Former Staff
12 days ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 260
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

SnowWolf said:
Adding on to the characters-in-thought-bubbles, how do we count, like, pictures of a character at different stages of life, or different forms or outfits? it's all one character, so is it solo?

▼ Examples

abstract_background animal_humanoid bag boots brown_eyes clothed clothing dav-19 dress female fluffy fluffy_tail footwear fox_humanoid fox_tail front_view fully_clothed hair happy humanoid leaves leggings legwear mammal multiple_poses orange_hair patricia_(dav-19) poncho pose shirt smile solo standing

Rating: Safe
Score: 9
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 10, 2018 abstract_background age_progression alternate_species animal_humanoid armor bangage belt boots breasts charizard charmander charmeleon clothed clothing crouching dav-19 female flaming_tail footwear front_view fully_clothed gauntlets gloves green_eyes hair holding_object holding_weapon hood humanoid jumping leather leather_armor legwear loincloth looking_at_viewer melee_weapon membranous_wings multiple_poses nintendo orange_theme pauldron pokemon_humanoid pokéball pokémon pokémon_(species) pose red_hair solo spiked_armor spread_wings standing sword tights tunic unconvincing_armor video_games weapon wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 7
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 09, 2018 armor belt black_hair black_scales cape chinese_text clothing dress fangs feathering female feral feral_to_human fur grey_hair grin hair hair_bun hand_on_hip helmet hi_res holding_object holding_weapon horn human juanmao1997 kirin mammal melee_weapon multiple_images multiple_poses polearm pose red_eyes red_scales red_sclera robe scales sheathed_weapon smile solo spear sword taur text transformation translation_request weapon yellow_eyes

Rating: Safe
Score: 4
User: SnowWolf
Date: January 04, 2018

The last one is easiest to figure out. Each form is depicted separately with no interaction, and they're not in the same 'scene'. Should be treated the same as multi-images, which'd make it solo.

The other two? Not really sure. Are those even the same character, instead of siblings? The middle one has sort of a team-pose going on, so I'd actually go with group for that.


Here's another tricky one- internal vore shots where one character is literally the background/environment.

- I think this one and stuff like it could be comfortably tagged as 'solo'
- This... is a bit less clear.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
12 days ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 19
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

Genjar said:
The last one is easiest to figure out. Each form is depicted separately with no interaction, and they're not in the same 'scene'. Should be treated the same as multi-images, which'd make it solo.

The other two? Not really sure. Are those even the same character, instead of siblings? The middle one has sort of a team-pose going on, so I'd actually go with group for that.

Thanks!

I know in someplaces we advocate tagging multiple things (red hair? Orange hair? Tag both!) while in others we don't (gender, for example)... is solo/duo/group/*focus one of those tags? That middle one, for example, I might tag solo AND group if that were a thing.. hm.

regsmutt said:
Here's another tricky one- internal vore shots where one character is literally the background/environment.

- I think this one and stuff like it could be comfortably tagged as 'solo'
- This... is a bit less clear.

Clearly, we need a conditionally_solo tag like.... solo_but_with_conditions or Kinda_solo_maybe .... solo_with_benefits? ;)

More seriously... ... solo_focus...? maybe?

Genjar
Former Staff
12 days ago
2011 annoyed antennae arthropod biped black_markings blue_eyes clear_membrane clothed clothing crossed_arms cute duo feral front_view green_body human insect insect_wings lifting lol_comments male mammal markings moth nisimawari pellucid_hawk_moth portrait quadruped shirt shorts simple_background solo_focus spread_wings standing three-quarter_portrait three-quarter_view traditional_media_(artwork) watercolor_(artwork) white_background wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 260
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

Just a small note, so I don't forget about it.

Noticed the new magic_wand wiki entry.
Magic wand, as opposed to a plain regular wand? Something like 99% of wand seem to be of the spellcasting variety, so that's likely something that'll need sorting. Or maybe just an alias.

SnowWolf
Former Staff
12 days ago
black_fur blue_eyes blue_feathers blue_hair equine fan_character feathered_wings feathers female feral flying fur hair hi_res horn mammal multicolored_hair my_little_pony shilokh smile snowdrift snowflake solo star watermark white_feathers winged_unicorn wings

Rating: Safe
Score: 19
User: SnowWolf
Date: July 28, 2012

Genjar said:
Just a small note, so I don't forget about it.

Noticed the new magic_wand wiki entry.
Magic wand, as opposed to a plain regular wand? Something like 99% of wand seem to be of the spellcasting variety, so that's likely something that'll need sorting. Or maybe just an alias.

Not to be confused with the thing that's been tagged repeatedly in the recent posts... aahh.

Hmm

I agree there should probably only be one tag for it... and I'm a little more inclined to 'wand' over magic wand, due to the hitachi thing. That and when it's just a wooden stick, how can we tell if it's actually magic? on the other hand, "magic wand" is a pretty normal way of referring to the thing. On the other other hand... I don't think 'wand' is used to mean really anything else, in modern english, aside of the very specific vibrator, so needing to specify doesn't seem particularly necessary.

Eh. One tag.