Ruined_Orgasm Tag Aliased to Invalid_Tag

In category: Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

21 Days ago the tag, Ruined_orgasm, was aliased to Invalid_tag by Ratte (https://e926.net/user/show/35483) with the reason, “what even was this supposed to mean”.

I’m not sure why this tag was removed/aliased but to my knowledge, a ruined orgasm is one that occurs when stimulation is removed right when the subject orgasms, which causes them to orgasm without the positive feelings, affectively ruining it. The tag had appropriate posts that matched this description. The reason given was obscure, as ruined_orgasm has a clear definition and usage.

Sorry if I have made a mistake, but I wanted to bring this to attention in case the tag was aliased to invalid_tag incorrectly.

As of right now the alias record is here (https://e926.net/tag_alias?commit=Search+Aliases&page=16&query=invalid_tag)


I think the reasoning behind the change is pretty dumb. "what even was this supposed to mean?" Really? Well golly-gee if ONE person doesn't know the meaning of a tag, guess we'd better get rid of it! That makes sense.

It's actually a fairly common fetish, and I know what it means off the top of my head...it's basically when a chick brings a guy to orgasm, usually with her hands, then immediately stops jerking him off...usually taking her hands completely off his dick. I think any male will know that in order to get the best orgasm you have to keep stroking, so by stopping immediately she is purposefully "ruining" the orgasm. It's kinda a femdom thing.

Of course such a tag would be rare because it is difficult to represent such an act in 2D art. It would be easier in animation actually, but still difficult because cum is hard to animate in both 2D and 3D animations...so a fetish act involving cum would be rare, but just because something is rare doesn't make it invalid. This tag should be restored for sure, unless there is already a better tag for this sort of thing (doubt it).


We've examined the tag, and there was simply absolutely no common theme between the tagged images.

While I agree that ruined orgasms are a fetish thing, it's straight up impossible to tag so on still images, and that's where most of these tags were showing up.


NotMeNotYou said:
While I agree that ruined orgasms are a fetish thing, it's straight up impossible to tag so on still images, and that's where most of these tags were showing up.

I would say it's difficult, not impossible. I mean I could probably draw one right now..might have to be in a comic form, but I could do it. If something has been mistagged then just remove the mistags, but now we can straight up NEVER tag ruined_orgasm just because some people mistagged.

Plus...as I mentioned...not everything on the site is drawn...it could probably be done very easily by an SFM artist if they have experience doing cumshots at all.


Wait, so this tag was made invalid because Ratte couldn't understand it?
My disdain for Ratte aside, it's still pretty obvious what it meant.

While I agree tagging "still images" with it may have been difficult, if not impossible, it's still very fitting for the few animations and (especially) comics that could feature it.

It's okay to have a niche tag, guys.


Dunnno said:
Wait, so this tag was made invalid because Ratte couldn't understand it?

No. Contrary to what everyone seems to think I don't do things out of nowhere. This was discussed among staff before anything was done about it. It was going to be either me or someone else doing it, but it would have still been done.

Dunnno said:
My disdain for Ratte aside[...]

Get over yourself.


Dyrone said:
I would say it's difficult, not impossible. I mean I could probably draw one right now..might have to be in a comic form, but I could do it. If something has been mistagged then just remove the mistags, but now we can straight up NEVER tag ruined_orgasm just because some people mistagged.

Plus...as I mentioned...not everything on the site is drawn...it could probably be done very easily by an SFM artist if they have experience doing cumshots at all.

There were more than a hundred images, none of them featured anything remotely suggesting something implying a ruined orgasm. We're not willing to curate something that's excessively incorrectly used.


What a wonderful thing it is that we have tag history!

Let's have a peek at some of the Ruined_Orgasm posts. :)

▼ All tagged by one user on a delightful day in may

Conclusion: one 'ruined orgasm' and several hands free orgasms with no real indication that the female on top is denying the male further stimulation

▼ An assortment of random users

One hands free orgasm with no female in sight, one fully hands on orgasm, one vicious physical attack mid-orgasm, one edging post where there is not even an orgasm. more hands free orgasms, Another violence-during-orgasm. A "orgasm-despite-chastity-device"..

Yep.

There is not really a cohesive theme here.


This thread annoys me, so I'm going to post for no reason. I went through all unique posts (i.e. no child posts) that had the tag at some point and counted this:

  • Correct Usages: 9
  • Questionable usages: 9
    • ambiguous scenarios (2)
    • teased with negligible stimulation to orgasm (4)
    • blocking semen flow during an orgasm (3)
  • Bltatant mis-tags: 35
  • It's been my tagging philosophy to make sure any niche fetish is tagged, but... yeah, I can't win this argument.


    Dyrone is right. The invalidation was overkill.

    NotMeNotYou said:
    We've examined the tag, and there was simply absolutely no common theme between the tagged images.

    So a clear definition can be put on the wiki and the tag can be cleaned up. There were so few posts, I can't imagine this would have taken more than an hour.

    We shouldn't invalidate tags that can be salvaged, especially when the problem is sloppy usage rather than some fundamental issue with what the tag "is."

    Hasty.


    Maxpizzle said:
    Dyrone is right. The invalidation was overkill.

    So a clear definition can be put on the wiki and the tag can be cleaned up. There were so few posts, I can't imagine this would have taken more than an hour.

    We shouldn't invalidate tags that can be salvaged, especially when the problem is sloppy usage rather than some fundamental issue with what the tag "is."

    Hasty.

    One word: Sets.

    A set is far better suited for this purpose than actual tags.

    Genjar
    Former Staff
    15 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: 280
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

    Maxpizzle said:
    We shouldn't invalidate tags that can be salvaged, especially when the problem is sloppy usage rather than some fundamental issue with what the tag "is."

    Nobody is going to salvage such tags. That's been seen over and over: much talk, but nobody is willing to actually put in the work.

    If it starts messy, it stays messy.


    Genjar said:
    Nobody is going to salvage such tags. That's been seen over and over: much talk, but nobody is willing to actually put in the work.

    If it starts messy, it stays messy.

    This. All of the posts are still there. you can look and see all the posts that were tagged with it. NOTHING stops you from tagging these properly.

    So if you want it, go and DO it.

    No one is saying "this cannot be tagged, ever."

    Put the proper images in a set. Think of some good tag names. think about how you'd define the tag. think about what the tag isn't.

    If you want this tag around, put in the work, y'all.

    CrocoGator said:
    This thread annoys me, so I'm going to post for no reason. I went through all unique posts (i.e. no child posts) that had the tag at some point and counted this:

    I like you. Would you like to hold hands at recess?


    NotMeNotYou said:
    One word: Sets.

    A set is far better suited for this purpose than actual tags.

    One word: No. No they're not. This should be a tag...not a set.

    NotMeNotYou said:
    There were more than a hundred images, none of them featured anything remotely suggesting something implying a ruined orgasm. We're not willing to curate something that's excessively incorrectly used.

    Or you just didn't look through them well enough because according to CrocoGator there were actually 9 correct uses of the tag...but even if there were ZERO, the tag is valid because it is a porn thing that happens, and conceivably someone could eventually upload an image or video that features a ruined orgasm.

    If you're not willing to do a job right, then don't even do it. Leave the tag alone if you're not willing to look through less than 100 posts, which isn't even a lot of posts.

    Genjar said:
    Nobody is going to salvage such tags. That's been seen over and over: much talk, but nobody is willing to actually put in the work.

    If it starts messy, it stays messy.

    The work was just put in. CrocoGator went through every single post. I'm sure if the tag was still valid he would have cleaned them up in the process and the tag would be in great shape. Unfortunately we decided to invalidate it.

    I don't like this idea that because something is a clusterfuck it's best to just throw a stick of dynamite at it and turn it into a smoking crater. Let it be a clusterfuck...maybe warn the people who are misusing the tag to stop it from becoming more of a clusterfuck, then just WAIT. Someone will eventually clean it up, and in the meantime it's not like it's hurting anyone.

    SnowWolf said:
    This. All of the posts are still there. you can look and see all the posts that were tagged with it. NOTHING stops you from tagging these properly.

    Yeah, except the fact that the most apt tag is invalidated. That's kinda a spanner in the works.


    Dyrone said:

    Yeah, except the fact that the most apt tag is invalidated. That's kinda a spanner in the works.

    Ahem.

    "So I went through and I put all of the images that seemed appropriate in this set and added several more from my favorites. I've got about 40 posts now, here in set #ASDF. I've been thinking about the best tag for this, and I think ruined_orgasm would be the best one."

    Or..

    "I went through and tagged all images that seemed appropriate with sad_penis. I've also added several more from around the site and have about 40 posts now. That said, I don't think Sad_penis is the best tag for this. Could we please unalias ruined_orgasm?"

    Or there are other tags. Spoiled_orgasm, uneuphoric_orgasm, unpleasurable_orgasm, ejaculation_without_orgasm, pleasureless_orgasm.. several of which might be better-- except...

    well, it's pretty dang hard to figure out those emotions isn't it? is he cumming happily, or angry? is that pleasure or pain? We don't know. Is it a hands free orgasm? Are they feeling pleasure or are they struggling because someone has a dick halfway to their stomach?

    This is why a set is better suited.

    And after it's in a set, it can *always* be moved into a tag instead, if a good argument is made.

    Jeeze guys.

    Stop acting like everything is set in stone and unmoveable.

    If you want a change, make a good argument for it, take some action, show you're willing to do the work, don't just complain.

    Especially not when the argument is basically "yeah the tag was a mess with only 20% 'accurate' tags, and no one noticed it was gone for over a month but it was the BEST tag for this concept that no one had ever defined."

    Oh wait.

    It DID have a wiki page.

    Ahem:

    when a charterer orgasms but it is not satisfying/pleasurable at-all


    Dyrone said:
    The work was just put in. CrocoGator went through every single post. I'm sure if the tag was still valid he would have cleaned them up in the process and the tag would be in great shape. Unfortunately we decided to invalidate it.

    Why yes, that's right! But why?

    CrocoGator said:
    This thread annoys me, so I'm going to post for no reason.

    Because nobody had bothered to do the work beforehand. The work was done after the tag was deleted, because the guy wanted to prove a point to you guys who are arguing in favor of it. You didn't do your job beforehand, which makes Genjar's statement correct. Do the work from the beginning or suffer the wrath of an invalid tag.

    I don't like this idea that because something is a clusterfuck it's best to just throw a stick of dynamite at it and turn it into a smoking crater. Let it be a clusterfuck...maybe warn the people who are misusing the tag to stop it from becoming more of a clusterfuck, then just WAIT. Someone will eventually clean it up, and in the meantime it's not like it's hurting anyone.

    And there's the bit that hurts. "Eventually." We don't rely on eventualities, we deal in the now. If you wanted it so bad, why didn't you take care of it yourself? Clearly, nobody who was interested in the tag was interested enough if nobody did so.

    Have enough interest now? Well then:

    SnowWolf said:
    --useful argument--

    This is why a set is better suited.

    And after it's in a set, it can *always* be moved into a tag instead, if a good argument is made.

    Show your dedication by keeping a vigilant watch for these things and maintaining a set. Invite others who show interest to maintain it as well, and submod your own set by sending a message to people who you feel aren't quite grasping your idea (Be polite, though!), or if people are outright vandalizing it after being invited, kick them off the maintenance team (Sets are user based projects, you'll have to take responsibility over your own sets, not rely on admins to do it).

    Genjar
    Former Staff
    15 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: 280
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

    Dyrone said:
    Someone will eventually clean it up, and in the meantime it's not like it's hurting anyone.

    I can't recall any instances where this has actually happened.

    At best, someone maintains such tags for a while, then either quits the site or just gives up. And then it quickly becomes a mess that nobody wants to touch. If the tag is bad to begin with, maintenance is just a temporary solution.

    Leaving tags alone and hoping that someone will fix them simply does not work.

    The old tagging projects thread is full of examples: tags that everyone has given up on, because of the overwhelming volume of work that it'd take to fix even a single one.


    Dyrone said:
    One word: No. No they're not. This should be a tag...not a set.

    Or you just didn't look through them well enough because according to CrocoGator there were actually 9 correct uses of the tag...but even if there were ZERO, the tag is valid because it is a porn thing that happens, and conceivably someone could eventually upload an image or video that features a ruined orgasm.

    If you're not willing to do a job right, then don't even do it. Leave the tag alone if you're not willing to look through less than 100 posts, which isn't even a lot of posts.

    Are we doing personal attacks now?
    I'm not sure how I got 120 images, considering I actually counted them manually just now and got only 64 images total. However, less than 25% correct tags is not a good basis for anything.

    Dyrone said:
    The work was just put in. CrocoGator went through every single post. I'm sure if the tag was still valid he would have cleaned them up in the process and the tag would be in great shape. Unfortunately we decided to invalidate it.

    I don't like this idea that because something is a clusterfuck it's best to just throw a stick of dynamite at it and turn it into a smoking crater. Let it be a clusterfuck...maybe warn the people who are misusing the tag to stop it from becoming more of a clusterfuck, then just WAIT. Someone will eventually clean it up, and in the meantime it's not like it's hurting anyone.

    So you're saying we should leave current problems alone, and that you're only willing to complain and wait for other people to fix it, instead of fixing it yourself? I'm not going to wait for someone to have mercy and clean up a mess that would only get worse if left alone.
    One of you advocates for this tag put in the work required to bring this a tag up to standard (proposed wiki and everything) and I'm willing the revert the decision. But as it stands it being invalidated is the better option.

    To get you started here's a list of all submissions that ever had the tag applied to them.


    Suggested alternative, unless it already exists in some form:

    ▼ interrupted_orgasm

    An orgasm that's shown to be weakened or even outright ended as a result of a sudden alteration to one's physical or psychological state while orgasming.

    Not the same as orgasm_denial. While an attempt at orgasm denial can lead to an interrupted orgasm due to a abrupt interruption or ending of erotic stimulation, the key difference between the two scenarios is that the recipient manages to reach the point of no return in an interrupted orgasm.

    If that's still too vague or easy to mistag, I apologize for wasting everyone's time.


    hsauq said:
    Suggested alternative, unless it already exists in some form:

    ▼ interrupted_orgasm

    An orgasm that's shown to be weakened or even outright ended as a result of a sudden alteration to one's physical or psychological state while orgasming.

    Not the same as orgasm_denial. While an attempt at orgasm denial can lead to an interrupted orgasm due to a abrupt interruption or ending of erotic stimulation, the key difference between the two scenarios is that the recipient manages to reach the point of no return in an interrupted orgasm.

    If that's still too vague or easy to mistag, I apologize for wasting everyone's time.

    I like this. As can be seen, a LOT of people have a different meaning for "ruined," yet "interrupted" is obvious, it's clear. It essentially means "stopped prematurely," everyone knows what interrupted means, or.. well.. I'd reckon most do, anyway.

    The biggest problem I foresee, however, is how to treat it. "interrupted orgasm" isn't a term people would really use outside of this site, so most'd still end up searching for "ruined," most likely. If we alias ruined to interrupted then we still have the issue of people tagging badly but if we don't alias it then people who aren't super familiar with the site won't get any results since the tag would be invalidated.

    And if we don't change it at all then we still have to deal with everyone's different definition of "ruined" because no one bothers to read the wiki when tagging. Regardless, I still feel "interrupted" is the best term, the problems that may come with aliasing are the same sort of problems that any other tag has when unfamiliar people come around to look up porn and, hopefully, just like those when they're tagged improperly they can be fixed quickly and easily.


    Are these interrupted_orgasms?


    CrocoGator said:
    Are these interrupted_orgasms?

    A slight revision:

    ▼ interrupted_orgasm

    An orgasm that's explicitly shown to be weakened or even outright ended as a direct result of a sudden alteration to one's physical or psychological state while orgasming.

    Not the same as orgasm_denial. While an attempt at orgasm denial can lead to an interrupted orgasm due to a abrupt interruption or ending of erotic stimulation, the key difference between the two scenarios is that the recipient manages to reach the point of no return in an interrupted orgasm.

    I thought my intent was clear enough with the word "shown".

    To answer your question, no. In none of these is the orgasm shown to be weakened or stopped as a direct result of the things occurring. In the last picture, it looks more like the cock_and_ball_torture is what's causing the orgasm, not hindering or preventing it.

    But if that's still not a good enough argument, then I concede.


    Going through the posts again, these are my thoughts:

    ▼ Stuff that counts

    (?? 1:30)

    ▼ Do these urethra-blocking posts count?


    First 3 are urethral_fingering. Last one is abruptly cutting off a magicjob with yet more magic

    ▼ do these dialogue teasing pics count


    the teasing may imply a ruined/interrupted orgasm occurred, but I might be reading too much into it.

    ▼ Do these (physical) tease + barely get off count?


    They lack the abruptness used to define the tag. But they still might involve a weakened orgasm

    If hsauq's definition is too vague we could also define it as:

    An orgasm, presumably caused by stimulation of the penis, where penile stimulation is drastically reduced or entirely removed at the point of no return. The body part or object used to stimulate the penis is often seen merely near or poking the penis during orgasm.

    It's a little more clear than hsauq's definition (at least to me), but is it being too specific? If it's too specific, hsauq's definition should be fine.

    Edit: stuff


    NotMeNotYou said:
    Are we doing personal attacks now?

    Not bothering to look through the posts and just nuking the tag is lazy...idk what else to call it. Sorry.

    NotMeNotYou said:
    However, less than 25% correct tags is not a good basis for anything.

    So...let me get this straight...if I find a small, but perfectly legitimate tag with 25 entries, then just fuck it up completely to the point where there are now 110 total entries with 85 of them being incorrect...you'll just invalidate the tag?

    NotMeNotYou said:
    So you're saying we should leave current problems alone, and that you're only willing to complain and wait for other people to fix it instead of fixing it yourself?

    Whoa whoa whoa...I had no idea this was even an issue until the tag was already invalidated. If it had been handled in a correct manner, i.e. brought up on the forums, then I might have had a chance to correct the tag. So don't accuse me of being lazy when there was literally no way I could have gotten in front of this. That's just ridiculous.

    NotMeNotYou said:
    I'm not going to wait for someone to have mercy and clean up a mess that would only get worse if left alone.

    Then don't leave it alone? Fix it? Or make a forum post about it so others can fix it? Idk *shrug*

    CrocoGator said:
    Do these urethra-blocking posts count?

    Yes...I think so. That should be added to the wiki as a possible type of ruined orgasm.

    CrocoGator said:
    Do these dialogue teasing pics count?
    Do these (physical) tease + barely get off count?

    nah. Seems like they came, but the ladies are just shit-talking their loads after the fact. Second set I can only say that's a lot of precum, because they're still begging to cum.

    NotMeNotYou said:
    One of you advocates for this tag put in the work required to bring this a tag up to standard (proposed wiki and everything) and I'm willing the revert the decision.

    Great. Revert it then cause the work has been done.


    Dyrone said:
    [stuff that was a response to my comment]

    Alright, updated wiki definition:


    An orgasm that is shown to be weakened by abruptly removing or reducing penile stimulation at the point of no return. The body part or object used to stimulate the penis is often seen merely near or poking the penis during orgasm. Common practice in femdom and orgasm_denial. May occasionally be combined with other practices to make the orgasm unpleasant such as urethral_penetration.

    See also:

    The tag could start out with the first 18 pics from my previous comment.


    Dyrone said:
    Not bothering to look through the posts and just nuking the tag is lazy...idk what else to call it. Sorry.

    Dude. Look at the third post. NotMeNotYou literally said

    We've examined the tag, and there was simply absolutely no common theme between the tagged images.


    SnowWolf said:
    Dude. Look at the third post. NotMeNotYou literally said
    "We've examined the tag, and there was simply absolutely no common theme between the tagged images."

    I mean...I'd prefer to stop harping on this, but if others are going to keep bringing it up...

    he literally said "none of them featured anything remotely suggesting something implying a ruined orgasm." which is untrue. Which means they didn't look at every post. My point was never that they didn't examine it at all, just that imo the examination wasn't thorough enough, and if you're going to invalidate a tag I think the examination needs to be very thorough.


    I like the idea of interrupted_orgasm, it’s clearer than ruined_orgasm and still preserves the posts that were tagged correctly. Otherwise, how would one search for this specific kink if there wasn’t tag?


    I went ahead and created interrupted_orgasm. No wiki yet.

    Genjar
    Former Staff
    6 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: 280
User: Genjar
Date: May 29, 2013

    Nice work. The wiki entry looks good, I think this is safe to keep now.