Implicating uncut → foreskin
Link to implication

Reason:

If anything, this should either be aliased or reversed, since literally all other tags worded foreskin imply uncut. This is the leftover tag from a long-ago forum debate, and it was unaliased, then realiased, and then unaliased again, which leaves a lot to be desired for the stability of this tag.

forum #197265

Mario69 said:
forum #197265

For thousands of years I've laid dormant! Who has disturbed my...

Mario69 said:
forum #197265

Urgh, that thing.
We spent several hours (and far too many cups of coffee) debating it in the committee, finally came up with a decision, and it ended up pretty much like this:

Committee: "Hey Genjar, go tell them on the forum what we decided."
Users: "Hey Genjar, you don't make the rules."
Me: "Any committee members care to back me up here? No? Okay then. :/"

Then one admin goes solo, completely ignores the committee discussion, and makes further mess of the things. Thanks for reminding me why I quit.

This implication was supposed to be done ages ago and Im still unsure why it wasn't.
Probably because when it actually went through (like it should have) parasprite was harassed for doing anything and chased off of the admin team.

Regardless. The alias was stripped like it should have been, but despite being told that the implication was going to be added it never was.

I wasn't even aware uncut and foreskin had been unaliased in the first place, huh. This whole debacle seems like a huge mess, so maybe a strong, revaluated opinion from the mod team might settle thing for the time being. Might also just create a complete duplicate of the above-mentioned forum thread, but nothing ventured etc.

Demesejha said:
This implication was supposed to be done ages ago and Im still unsure why it wasn't.

As was said by several admins in the last thread, the plan is to alias uncut to intact_foreskin, then implicate that (and a bunch of other foreskin-related tags) to foreskin.

As for why that hasn't been done? Who knows. Probably for the same reason why other aliases/implications aren't getting handled: too much work. Especially when there's existing implications, and thousands of posts that need to be moved.

Does the foreskin tag even need to exist? What benefit does it provide that uncut doesn't?

11 months ago, Genjar said:

Anyway, the last I heard, the current plan is this:

• foreskin
• intact_foreskin (<- uncut)
• retracted_foreskin
• partially_retracted_foreskin
• long_foreskin
• phimosis
• cum_in_foreskin
• tongue_in_foreskin
• foreskin_pull
• foreskin_play

Is that plan purely about a name change? Or are tag definitions supposed to change a bit too?

abadbird said:
Does the foreskin tag even need to exist?

I'm not convinced that anyone actually needs a tag for "any foreskins, whether it's intact, being cut, severed, etc", but then again, most umbrella tags tend to be somewhat useless.

Is that plan purely about a name change? Or are tag definitions supposed to change a bit too?

Just a name change if I can remember right, though it's been months.

Intact_foreskin for intact ones, severed_foreskin for severed, circumcision for ones that are being cut, and circumcised for penises with no foreskin. That's pretty much unchanged, it just makes the usage clearer.

(Also, it stops users from complaining about how calling it 'uncut' glorifies circumcision. Though I never understood those complaints myself.)

If I may necro-inject, "uncut" makes little sense for a furry site. Many animals don't even have a prepuce, and such or similar structures aren't what's removed IRL. That tag'd make more sense for characters who still bear their balls.

So, rather than using Ameri-centric nomenclature for a concept largely foreign to non-human bodies, might compromise on "unretracted"? "sheathed" (or conversely "unsheathed") wouldn't be weildy with so many penises/phalluses portrayed with no discernable prepuce, and would bear confusion with weapons, specifically swords. While "unretracted" may not be as intuitive as to the subject matter, an alias and wiki should suffice, and we can skirt around the not-part-of-the-tagging-system implication of any "not uncut" genitals being altered, if the standing wiki still reads so.

NeverGive said:
If I may necro-inject, "uncut" makes little sense for a furry site. Many animals don't even have a prepuce, and such or similar structures aren't what's removed IRL. That tag'd make more sense for characters who still bear their balls.

You must be new.

You seem to view this matter from this perspective, that sheaths are technically foreskin too, but that's not how we tag, ever, I think.

humanoid_penis describes any penis on any character that looks like a human penis. uncut specifically describes foreskin similar to humans'. humanoid_penis -human -humanoid returns a little over 102K posts, and I know for a fact it's still relatively undertagged. Humanoid penises are probably more common on anthros than animal penises since animal_penis -feral -humanoid returns a little over 58K posts. uncut -human -humanoid returns a little over 36K posts.

Furries, as in the furry community, want art of furries, as in anthropomorphized animals. That necessarily means giving their art humanoid features, which often includes genitalia. You could argue that humanoid penises don't make sense on anthros, but that's a design critique irrelevant to tagging and anthros aren't real anyway so the sky's the limit.

So, rather than using Ameri-centric nomenclature for a concept largely foreign to non-human bodies, might compromise on "unretracted"? "sheathed" (or conversely "unsheathed") wouldn't be weildy with so many penises/phalluses portrayed with no discernable prepuce, and would bear confusion with weapons, specifically swords. While "unretracted" may not be as intuitive as to the subject matter, an alias and wiki should suffice, and we can skirt around the not-part-of-the-tagging-system implication of any "not uncut" genitals being altered, if the standing wiki still reads so.

I'll just dump what I know like I always do.

The key point from all this is that we tag humanoid foreskin uncut, an anatomical structure distinct from other foreskin anatomy. We don't want to lose that distinction. We could alias foreskin and uncut to humanoid_foreskin, an interesting idea. I'm sure most users, myself included until I started this post, do not view sheaths as foreskin. I did not know there was room for confusion because, AFAIK, users have tagged these features consistently.

As discussed in the original thread where the alias had been stripped, this should have been done months ago but yet still hasn't been done.

There was a large discussion on why the alias was undone as well

https://e621.net/forum/show/197265

abadbird said:
We could alias foreskin and uncut to humanoid_foreskin

no. severed foreskin is still a thing that exist in art, if this alias was done, searching uncut would result in severed foreskins showing up in search reasults since they contain a foreskin too. that is NOT what should be showing up when you look up uncut.

this is exact reason why the uncut -> foreskin alias was undone almost instantly after it was created some time ago.

plus this is a poor idea because i believe that its very possible to draw foreskins that do not follow human anatomy at all. i bet my entire ass that you can find example of non-humanoid foreskins under slug_(artist) tag

Lord_Eggplant said:
no. severed foreskin is still a thing that exist in art, if this alias was done, searching uncut would result in severed foreskins showing up in search reasults since they contain a foreskin too. that is NOT what should be showing up when you look up uncut.

this is exact reason why the uncut -> foreskin alias was undone almost instantly after it was created some time ago.

plus this is a poor idea because i believe that its very possible to draw foreskins that do not follow human anatomy at all. i bet my entire ass that you can find example of non-humanoid foreskins under slug_(artist) tag

Until I took my art down I had art involving just such a thing so yeah youre definitely right on non human foreskins etc as well