Aliasing ball_exposure → exposed_testicle
Link to alias

Reason:

I mean, its technically not wrong. I was tagging the castration images that were relevant when I noticed the ball exposure tag. So for consistency one or the other would be best. Personally voting for exposed_testicle because it doesnt get any more plain english and understandable than that.

EDIT: The tag alias ball_exposure -> exposed_testicle (forum #204543) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

GDelscribe said:
Aliasing ball_exposure → exposed_testicle
Link to alias

Reason:

I mean, its technically not wrong. I was tagging the castration images that were relevant when I noticed the ball exposure tag. So for consistency one or the other would be best. Personally voting for exposed_testicle because it doesnt get any more plain english and understandable than that.

Just saying, using testicles would also require new aliases and implications for size descriptive tags such as small_balls -> balls -> big_balls -> huge_balls -> hyper_balls and others...

worth noting proper twys would actually call for the use of "scrotum"(visible anatomical structure) sense "testicles"(organ) arnt actually visible. Not even internal shots depict the organ but rather the scrotum as just a empty sack filled with fluid.

And no i wouldnt mind that change much if aliased^^

Ruku said:
Just saying, using testicles would also require new aliases and implications for size descriptive tags such as small_balls -> balls -> big_balls -> huge_balls -> hyper_balls and others...

worth noting proper twys would actually call for the use of "scrotum"(visible anatomical structure) sense "testicles"(organ) arnt actually visible. Not even internal shots depict the organ but rather the scrotum as just a empty sack filled with fluid.

And no i wouldnt mind that change much if aliased^^

Actually I was gonna bring that up. A lot of internal shots actually do show the testicle itself, esp in relation to castration art.

So far Im only tagging things where the exposed testicle is outside of the bag but was wondering if I should tag ANY image with visible testicles?

And technically yes, along with the change from cock -> penis we should actually be tagging balls not scrotum, especially when the other niche fetishes are involved.

Oh God. NOT WHAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE.

GDelscribe said:
Actually I was gonna bring that up. A lot of internal shots actually do show the testicle itself, esp in relation to castration art.

So far Im only tagging things where the exposed testicle is outside of the bag but was wondering if I should tag ANY image with visible testicles?

And technically yes, along with the change from cock -> penis we should actually be tagging balls not scrotum, especially when the other niche fetishes are involved.

GDelscribe said:
Actually I was gonna bring that up. A lot of internal shots actually do show the testicle itself, esp in relation to castration art.

So far Im only tagging things where the exposed testicle is outside of the bag but was wondering if I should tag ANY image with visible testicles?

And technically yes, along with the change from cock -> penis we should actually be tagging balls not scrotum, especially when the other niche fetishes are involved.

ignore all i said, i didnt realize you where talking about a sub-group of gore. thru the name of the former is still kinda misleading. I personaly understand exposed balls as the scrotum hanging out of the jeans fly/zipper while the rest of the genitals are still covered in the jeans/pants, just saying

Could we get a ruling on this here?

The tag alias ball_exposure -> exposed_testicle (forum #204543) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.