So, I found an interesting tag this evening.

animal_genitalia

no wiki page, yet, but it has a lot of use (381 posts). as for what it covers... well, seems pretty self explanatory

Thing is, we already have anatomically_correct, which is in use on 365 posts.

neither have any implications or aliases attached to them.

I propose that animal_genitalia is a superior tag. as anatomically correct has "artistic" overtones, suggesting correct or incorrect anatomy, as well that the anatomy in question is actually drawn correctly, which in many cases, it might not be.

Thus:

• anatomically_correct is aliased to animal_genitalia

anatomically_correct_penis is aliased to animal_genitalia (after tagging everything in the tag as the proper animal bit)
anatomically_correct_pussy is aliased to animal_genitalia (after tagging everything in the tag as the proper animal bit)

and subsequently:

• canine_penis implies animal_genitalia

feline_penis implies animal_genitalia
marsupial_penis implies animal_genitalia
cervine_penis]] implies animal_genitalia
bovine_penis implies animal_genitalia
ursine_penis implies animal_genitalia
enchidna_penis implies animal_genitalia
bifurcated_penis implies animal_genitalia
hemipenes implies animal_genitalia
horsecock implies animal_genitalia

• (all the above implying penis also if they do not already.

• canine_pussy implies animal_genitalia

equine_pussy implies animal_genitalia
feline_pussy implies animal_genitalia
bovine_pussy implies animal_genitalia

• (all the above implying pussy also if they do not already)

and maybe:

• tapering_penis implies animal_genitalia

knot implies animal_genitalia
cloacae implies animal_genitalia

Breasts do not classically count as 'genitalia', but, There could be arguement for teats likewise implying animal_genitalia

Whatchy'all think?

i think animal genitals r groce

All the implications sound great Snow

Though, having one tag for identification (animal genitalia, and another for accuracy anatomically correct would be pretty useful in terms of search flexibility, but it would probably require much active effort to ensure they wouldn't be used interchangeably

If that's the case, the aliases sound great as well

Should just replace all of these tags with "Morticus", lol

Lynx7386 said:
Should just replace all of these tags with "Morticus", lol

Whut?

post #184103

^^^ What Test said.

The only time we could actually use anatomically_correct is if it's a well-drawn feral. I'm sorry, but that tag has always bugged me. An image with a doggish character with a dog penis, but still with hands and a beard and opposable thumbs is tagged anatomically_correct? What? Anatomically incorrect, if you ask me...So I'm 100% behind you on this, Snow. anatomically_correct needs to be done away with in its entirety.

okay. In general there appears to be support for this idea :D

So... in the next few days, I"ll get these aliased and implying and stuff.

in the mean time.. . Did I miss anything?

I'm not sure about knot -> animal_genitalia. I seem to recall a fair number of drawings that show a knot on a penis that otherwise looks human, circumcised and all. Not that that makes any damn sense.

Also, what about knots in a rope?

RenaKunisaki said:
Also, what about knots in a rope?

Is it used that way? I've not seen it. Usually it's just got the rope tag. I don't think knotted ropes necessarily need to be tagged as anything more than rope.

RenaKunisaki said:
I'm not sure about knot -> animal_genitalia. I seem to recall a fair number of drawings that show a knot on a penis that otherwise looks human, circumcised and all. Not that that makes any damn sense.

I wasn't going to agree or disagree, but after seeing this
post #101143
bird with a dog cock, I agree. Knot should not imply or be aliased to anything.

Yeah, there's all sorts of knotted cocks around that aren't "realistic" animal penis.

RedOctober said:
I wasn't going to agree or disagree, but after seeing this
post #101143
bird with a dog cock, I agree. Knot should not imply or be aliased to anything.

well, it technically IS animal genitalia, but I don't really agree with it either. ^^;

whatchall thing about tapering penis and cloacae?

I thought we settled on anatomically_correct_* back in forum #31167

I'd stick to the specific terms, anatomically_correct/animal_genitalia is too generic.

ThenIThought said:
I thought we settled on anatomically_correct_* back in forum #31167

I'd stick to the specific terms, anatomically_correct/animal_genitalia is too generic.

Actually, If I'm seeing correctly, that forum thread was basically one guy trumpeting about how true_penis was different then anatomically_correct and how anatomically_correct was wrong and bad and terrible, while everyone else tried to point out that no, they really were the same thing.

If you look bacck at the top post here, the 'short' version is that two tags were found, both have about equal use, and comparing the two, I thought that one was superior to the other for reasons.

that said 1) I wasn't here for that discussion, 2) that discussion was half a year ago. 3) It is not unreasonable for tags to change as the community changes.

anyway.. I made a proposal. After reading the thread you linked, I would also be content if

• anatomically_correct is aliased to animal_genitalia

anatomically_correct_penis implies animal_genitalia
anatomically_correct_pussy implies animal_genitalia

and subsequently:

*canine_penis implies anatomically_correct_penis

and so forth.

I would also be fine enough if people decided that anatomically_correct was the 'better' of the two tags.

the bottom line, anyway, is that there are two tags that mean the same thing. One should be merged into the other.

I'd stick to the specific terms, anatomically_correct/animal_genitalia is too generic.

also, I did say IMPLY.

With my original proposal, tagging canine_penis will result in the following tags:

• canine_penis
• penis
• animal_genitalia

with the secondary proposal:

• canine_penis
• anatomically_correct_penis
• animal_genitalia
• penis

Alternatively, (for a third idea) anatomically_correct_penis/pussy could be renamed to animal_penis/pussy (or some such), if one really wished, to result in:

• canine_penis

animal_penis
animal_genitalia
penis

tl;dr - OP is propsing merging two redundant tags, and adding a lot of implications to see that everything that should be tagged is.

RedOctober said:
^^^ What Test said.

The only time we could actually use anatomically_correct is if it's a well-drawn feral. I'm sorry, but that tag has always bugged me. An image with a doggish character with a dog penis, but still with hands and a beard and opposable thumbs is tagged anatomically_correct? What? Anatomically incorrect, if you ask me...So I'm 100% behind you on this, Snow. anatomically_correct needs to be done away with in its entirety.

The reason you stated is PRECISELY why we need the anatomically correct tag. Mistagged images is not a reason to do away with the tag. But the tag is the only way we can search for a doggish character with doggish limbs, doggish penis, and properly non-anthro doggish everything (in the correct proportions, etc). (and before anyone mentions, a feral dog with a horse penis should still be marked as feral, so feral isn't good enough a tag)

Basically in my opinion, anatomically_correct should imply animal genitalia (and feral), but with a lot more stringent citera for it to be tagged as anatomically_correct:
1) As mentioned, animal genitalia. Can't be anatomically correct without the core anatomy which is problematic (since everything else is dealt with by feral)
2) Must be feral.
3) Must be a RL species, or if non-RL species, be mostly based on ONE species. (e.g. Pegasus, cerebus, ponyta would count. Griffins wouldn't count)
4) Must be correct genitalia for the species.
5) Must have correct proportions.
(might have missed some points, feel free to add)

I say we throw out animal_genitalia via -> invalid_tag and make people blacklist everything with a penis that they don't like.

GreyMaria said:
I say we throw out animal_genitalia via -> invalid_tag and make people blacklist everything with a penis that they don't like.

Please, constructive suggestions only.

I really agree with the implications, although I haven't gone through each and every one

I think it's a good idea, anatomically_correct based on penis is kinda silly. They may be some fine tuning in the future, but this is a good idea

Lyokira said:
The reason you stated is PRECISELY why we need the anatomically correct tag. Mistagged images is not a reason to do away with the tag. But the tag is the only way we can search for a doggish character with doggish limbs, doggish penis, and properly non-anthro doggish everything (in the correct proportions, etc). (and before anyone mentions, a feral dog with a horse penis should still be marked as feral, so feral isn't good enough a tag)

Basically in my opinion, anatomically_correct should imply animal genitalia (and feral), but with a lot more stringent citera for it to be tagged as anatomically_correct:
1) As mentioned, animal genitalia. Can't be anatomically correct without the core anatomy which is problematic (since everything else is dealt with by feral)
2) Must be feral.
3) Must be a RL species, or if non-RL species, be mostly based on ONE species. (e.g. Pegasus, cerebus, ponyta would count. Griffins wouldn't count)
4) Must be correct genitalia for the species.
5) Must have correct proportions.
(might have missed some points, feel free to add)

I think I like this.

I think SnowWolf's suggestions regarding the implication of animal genitalia are a good idea. However, I agree with Lyokira that animal genitalia and anatomically correct shouldn't be aliased; I think the latter should he used only when the genitalia match the species (so post #181008, for example, would be tagged with the former but not the latter).

I don't know if these suggestions have been dropped for some reason, or what-did anyone ever submit them as official alias suggestions? If they did, I'm curious-why were they rejected?

Please don't remove or alias canine_pussy and canine_penis. They both anatomically correct, right, but all body can be anthro... And animal_genitalia does not reflect the gender. animal_genitalia+female is too long for search :) And if I will search an bitch with canine pussy as "animal_genitalia+female" I will find a lot of human females fucked by male dog with canine penis.

Yay - necroposting time. :)

I, personally, think that anatomically_correct tag is just silly, and should be aliased to animal_genitalia.

1) As mentioned, animal genitalia. Can't be anatomically correct without the core anatomy which is problematic (since everything else is dealt with by feral)
(...)
4) Must be correct genitalia for the species.

If genitalia are core of the issue, than why opposition to aliasing it to animal_genitalia? Nobody seem to care about anything more than penis/pussy.

2) Must be feral.

What is the meaning of "feral"? feral tag? I'm sure that primates, and their lookalikes don't get feral tag. So they can't be anatomically correct?

Or does it mean that they must look like feral animals. And when they look like real animals - when they are anatomically correct. Therefore point 2 means that X is anatomically correct if it's anatomically correct. Well, duh.

3) Must be a RL species, or if non-RL species, be mostly based on ONE species. (e.g. Pegasus, cerebus, ponyta would count. Griffins wouldn't count)

WUT?
Ponyta anatomically correct? With hairs made of fire? How can this possibly be anatomically correct?

Pegasus? Flying with those wings is anatomically correct? Maybe blue, talking pegasus (anatomically correct vocal folds?) that can do sonic rainboom is also anatomically correct? Well, some people are tagging anatomically_correct rainbow_dash which is just utter bullshit.

Third rule is just strange. Why gryphons can't be anatomically correct, but pokemons or pegasi can?

Few people here knows what exactly is anatomically_correct and what is not. Even fewer people care about this, besides genitalia. I see no reason why anatomically_correct tag should exist.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Few people here knows what exactly is anatomically_correct and what is not. Even fewer people care about this, besides genitalia. I see no reason why anatomically_correct tag should exist.

Fair enough. I assumed the tag existed because people cared. If it isn't worth making a distinction between animal genitalia and anatomically correct, though, I think it would make more sense to make the latter an invalid tag than to alias the two, because they really don't mean the same thing.

caninez said:
Please don't remove or alias canine_pussy and canine_penis. They both anatomically correct, right, but all body can be anthro... And animal_genitalia does not reflect the gender. animal_genitalia+female is too long for search :) And if I will search an bitch with canine pussy as "animal_genitalia+female" I will find a lot of human females fucked by male dog with canine penis.

Don't worry-nobody has proposed anything that would interfere with the way canine pussy and canine penis function now. If SnowWolf's suggestions were implemented, users would be free to search for the broader range of results you mention in addition to using those tags as they already can.

What's the point of even having an "animal_genitalia" tag? It's too broad! What kind of genitalia isn't animal genitalia?

Pecacheu said:
What's the point of even having an "animal_genitalia" tag? It's too broad! What kind of genitalia isn't animal genitalia?

human?

ippiki_ookami said:
human?

It's rather self-centered to say that humans aren't animals. And why have a tag that includes everything except for one thing?

Pecacheu said:
It's rather self-centered to say that humans aren't animals. And why have a tag that includes everything except for one thing?

Because human genitalia offend some people on furries

Pecacheu said:
It's rather self-centered to say that humans aren't animals.

Don't be pedantic; Obviously in common usage, "animal" means "non-human".

if we are going to be doing this with male genitalia, shouldn't we also do it for the female versions?

Kaiselius said:
if we are going to be doing this with male genitalia, shouldn't we also do it for the female versions?

Yes.