I believe that artists and e621 patrons are not utilizing the tag system properly when it comes to the tag 'cum' and all it's variations. Many of the animations lately claim to display this tag in their art. This is not true, as they have been simply implying it for the viewer.

Most infractions have been with small scale animations and loops. The artist will call the smallest drop of bodily fuild 'cum' because they're attempting to bring in viewers and likes. This is abuse of the tagging system.

Or even worse there is NO display of fluid whatsoever and the viewer has to imply further with a limited animation.

Some examples are in my own tag history for viewing if you want to observe.

Please help tag what you SEE, appropriately. If you don't see it, then remove the tag.

knickknack said:
I believe that artists and e621 patrons are not utilizing the tag system properly when it comes to the tag 'cum' and all it's variations. Many of the animations lately claim to display this tag in their art. This is not true, as they have been simply implying it for the viewer.

Most infractions have been with small scale animations and loops. The artist will call the smallest drop of bodily fuild 'cum' because they're attempting to bring in viewers and likes. This is abuse of the tagging system.

Or even worse there is NO display of fluid whatsoever and the viewer has to imply further with a limited animation.

Some examples are in my own tag history for viewing if you want to observe.

Please help tag what you SEE, appropriately. If you don't see it, then remove the tag.

bruh, it's not that deep. Peeps just tag cum when they see cum.
can you explain what people are doing wrong? Even a little drop of cum can be tagged cum
it's not abuse, people are tagging what they see.

closetpossum said:
bruh, it's not that deep. Peeps just tag cum when they see cum.
can you explain what people are doing wrong? Even a little drop of cum can be tagged cum
it's not abuse, people are tagging what they see.

There are 2 great examples of cum tag removal in my tag history from the last 24 hours . I also stated bodily fluid and not cum. I recognize when I see it, even if it's a drop and leave the tag appropriately if it is.

I'm talking about blatantly not seeing it at all or just simply qualifying what essentially looks to be pre/lube/being wet as 'cum'

I will start adding posts id's, pre-tag-edited, to this forum body to start giving more examples.

this title is to vague for the true topic

closetpossum said:
bruh, it's not that deep. Peeps just tag cum when they see cum.
can you explain what people are doing wrong? Even a little drop of cum can be tagged cum
it's not abuse, people are tagging what they see.

post #4218329 is a recent example of this topic.

versperus said:
this title is to vague for the true topic

Fixed?

knickknack said:
Fixed?

very much better thank you

knickknack said:
post #4218329 is a recent example of this topic.

okay, you provided one example, the argument has become more valid. I don't see any cum. It's clear he & she has climaxed so there is technically cum.
And it's technically cum on the inside. Though no cum is shown. so implied_cum
you're title is still presumptious. It's not like people are abusing the tagging system. Implied Cum only has 20+ posts under it. Not everyone knows it exists. And clearly
when you see someone climaxing but you see know cum, you're brain is already wired that you'd tag cum.

I myself would have tagged cum & cum inside if I was the uploader.

closetpossum said:
okay, you provided one example, the argument has become more valid. I don't see any cum. It's clear he & she has climaxed so there is technically cum.
And it's technically cum on the inside. Though no cum is shown. so implied_cum
you're title is still presumptious. It's not like people are abusing the tagging system. Implied Cum only has 20+ posts under it. Not everyone knows it exists. And clearly
when you see someone climaxing but you see know cum, you're brain is already wired that you'd tag cum.

I myself would have tagged cum & cum inside if I was the uploader.

'clearly seeing someone climaxing' doesn't make it any less implied. It's not being first hand observed. Therefore it's still implied.

Implied_cum tag exists because others saw the gravity of this tag & e621's cum tag miss-uses.

Cum_inside (and all variations) should be illustrated and observed otherwise they can be and are implied.

I gave three examples before this comment rather than one, per my tag history, as stated. I will put them here for convenience purposes following other examples:
Fixed
post #4219668

Pending
post #4220369

Other posts in question within 2 weeks of today
post #4207106
post #4199412

The tagging system is being abused by not being used properly and literally.

Please don't create random implied_* tags. There are nearly always better options.
Yes, don't tag cum_inside if there is no cum shown. No, don't tag implied_cum. Just tag orgasm.

scth said:
Please don't create random implied_* tags. There are nearly always better options.
Yes, don't tag cum_inside if there is no cum shown. No, don't tag implied_cum. Just tag orgasm.

Isn't implied_cum and orgasm the same thing.....
To have an orgasm without seeing cum feels like it'd be implied that there is cum...also nobody is creating "implied_*" tags. Implied cum has been around before this post existed.

scth said:
Please don't create random implied_* tags. There are nearly always better options.
Yes, don't tag cum_inside if there is no cum shown. No, don't tag implied_cum. Just tag orgasm.

I didn't create the tag. It's long been around because of this said topic & issue of artists implying cum is in there work without fully illustrating it. Or TWYS is in place and people are tagging too vaguely.

I'm glad you agree that cum should not be tagged if it isn't shown.

closetpossum said:
Isn't implied_cum and orgasm the same thing.....

Yes, that's exactly why you should just tag orgasm instead. Orgasm has more utility than just another tag that focuses on semen. It can be used for female orgasms and dry orgasms.

thelibertineyeen said:
Yes, that's exactly why you should just tag orgasm instead. Orgasm has more utility than just another tag that focuses on semen. It can be used for female orgasms and dry orgasms.

Though I agree, I believe this is off topic. Implied cum simply exists because others saw the frustration of others attempting to imply when there is not any observed or illustrated.

I believe those who wish to stop this from further happening should use either tag, as long as the issue is being addressed.

knickknack said:
Though I agree, I believe this is off topic. Implied cum simply exists because others saw the frustration of others attempting to imply when there is not any observed or illustrated.

I believe those who wish to stop this from further happening should use either tag, as long as the issue is being addressed.

Implied_cum does work for that specific post, I don't understand all the fuss about it.

wolfmanfur said:
Implied_cum does work for that specific post, I don't understand all the fuss about it.

Trying to address artists and e621 users of not using cum tag when none is illustrated.

(I accidentally hit hide comment after posting due to double tapping, sorry. Reposting if no one can see it at all)
Most recent example being: post #4224048

This post has both cum and precum displayed and it was tagged by the poster. It's either confusion, implication or some tactic to bring in upvotes & viewers.

Attempting to bring awareness to the issue. It's such an issue someone a long time ago made an implied_cum tag out of some aim to shed light to the problem, I believe.

thelibertineyeen said:
Yes, that's exactly why you should just tag orgasm instead. Orgasm has more utility than just another tag that focuses on semen. It can be used for female orgasms and dry orgasms.

But then we still have a LOT of animated posts that have the cum tag even though you might not see any cum since they use "cum" to mean "orgasm". I remember a few years ago the orgasm tag used to be for any orgasm and cum was tagged if there was visible cum.

Oh thank god I'm not crazy and someone else noticed this misuse of cum_inside

It's especially bad when people keep re-adding cum_inside to those posts. It is definitely frustrating to remove the tag only for someone else to add it back days later because they don't appear to know what the tag is used for.
We already have audible_ejaculation for when the only indicator someone is cumming is the sound, of which the wiki page for it even states not to tag cum if there's no visible cum, but not all animated posts have this audio cue. Sometimes, the only indicator for orgasm is a visual pause in the character thrusting, as seen in post #4591012, post #5525896 and post #5381488, among others.

It would seem those people assume assume the tag means "cum (verb) inside" rather than "cum (noun) inside."

implied_orgasm exists but you can just use orgasm since it'll be evident like in the examples I've posted.
implied_ejaculation also exists and I would think this one should stay because there are cases where the artist doesn't make the ejaculation audible, but then this could also just be replaced with orgasm if you really think about it: in most cases the ejaculation is only implied via the male orgasming (in which case it would be visible and so the orgasm tag is valid) and the female supposedly reacting to the implied cum being implied cum'd inside her (of which case the orgasm tag would also be valid?).
Also, I'd assume audible_ejaculation and implied_ejaculation should be mutually exclusive. If we can hear it, it's not really implied anymore.

ecdce said:
Oh thank god I'm not crazy and someone else noticed this misuse of cum_inside

It's especially bad when people keep re-adding cum_inside to those posts. It is definitely frustrating to remove the tag only for someone else to add it back days later because they don't appear to know what the tag is used for.
We already have audible_ejaculation for when the only indicator someone is cumming is the sound, of which the wiki page for it even states not to tag cum if there's no visible cum, but not all animated posts have this audio cue. Sometimes, the only indicator for orgasm is a visual pause in the character thrusting, as seen in post #4591012, post #5525896 and post #5381488, among others.

It would seem those people assume assume the tag means "cum (verb) inside" rather than "cum (noun) inside."

You can't avoid bad taggers.

If someone keeps adding the wrong tags into posts, message them kindly and emphasise that the tag is not used that way while suggesting alternatives to use.
Otherwise, if a post keeps getting the tags added back on, reverted, and then back on again, you can report the post for Tagging Abuse and request for certain tags to be locked.

implied_orgasm exists but you can just use orgasm since it'll be evident like in the examples I've posted.
implied_ejaculation also exists and I would think this one should stay because there are cases where the artist doesn't make the ejaculation audible, but then this could also just be replaced with orgasm if you really think about it: in most cases the ejaculation is only implied via the male orgasming (in which case it would be visible and so the orgasm tag is valid) and the female supposedly reacting to the implied cum being implied cum'd inside her (of which case the orgasm tag would also be valid?).
Also, I'd assume audible_ejaculation and implied_ejaculation should be mutually exclusive. If we can hear it, it's not really implied anymore.

The whole line of implied_* tags are of dubious validity. So far, based on topic #39881, the one only tag that I can see that is "valid" in someway is implied_orgasm.
However, further discussion is needed if we want to imply or keep any of the other implied_* tags.

If the character is physically keeling over from cumming, then it would be orgasm. No need for any visible ejaculation.
If you see any visual cues (e.g., offscreen character with text cues or behavioural cues) or audibly hear a character climaxing but with no physical signs, then you can tag implied_orgasm.

If you hear the audible "SPLAT!", then it would be audible_ejaculation. May tag aloingside ejaculation or cum if visible.
If you see the character climaxing into someone but with no visible ejaculation, or with just an obscured cum_splatter, or with other visual cues (e.g., impregnation), then you can tag implied_ejaculation (if we decide it's valid); e.g., post #4805227, post #4483071, post #2844279.

I think post #807056 would be a good example of orgasm & implied_ejaculation.

Okay imma give my two cent on this topic since I was messaged about this, and as a normal user of this site (aka someone who peruses it but isn't deeply active on here outside of that except when I see missing tags for say...my character or my friends characters) I feel I gotta mention this:

This whole debate feels needlessly complicated and autistic. Autistic in the sense of "putting way too much emphasis on something trivial" and then getting upset about it when people see it differently or don't care as much as you do.

I understand wanting to be thorough, and I understand wanting to avoid confusion. But we got like 20 different cum tags, the same amount for orgasm. And it reached a point where it's kind of needlessly complicated, and badly explained even in the help text affixed to each tag. The fact you guys have been debating this back and forth and there's still new posts to a 2 year old thread kinda proves the point. For most people, cum_inside_mouth refers to the act, whether implied or not, of someone nutting inside someone's mouth. If you're a guy and you climax while getting sucked off, I'll guarantee you in most cases, your cum is gonna end up in their orifice, whether it's seen or not. And to speak personally? I find the idea of cumming inside someones mouth pretty hot. It's a fetish. That's most likely WHY people use that tag, because they have that fetish too and look for pics/animations that have that. Just an orgasm tag kinda doesn't specify enough, if we wanna go the route for "creating a tag for every sex act ever".

So I wouldn't call it "willful abuse" or artists/uploaders wanting to get some kinda e6 street cred, its people just tagging what they feel is sensible. Maybe the tag system needs some further slimming down. Maybe people need to step back and not care about a simple mistag that won't register as one for most people perusing this site.

busterdrag said:
This whole debate feels needlessly complicated and autistic. Autistic in the sense of "putting way too much emphasis on something trivial" and then getting upset about it when people see it differently or don't care as much as you do.

Man you just described half the forums :P

busterdrag said:
This whole debate feels needlessly complicated and autistic. Autistic in the sense of "putting way too much emphasis on something trivial" and then getting upset about it when people see it differently or don't care as much as you do.

I understand what you're saying here, but "pedantic" would be a better, more accurate, and less offensive term.

busterdrag said:
...For most people, cum_inside_mouth refers to the act, whether implied or not, of someone nutting inside someone's mouth. If you're a guy and you climax while getting sucked off, I'll guarantee you in most cases, your cum is gonna end up in their orifice, whether it's seen or not. And to speak personally? I find the idea of cumming inside someones mouth pretty hot. It's a fetish. That's most likely WHY people use that tag, because they have that fetish too and look for pics/animations that have that. Just an orgasm tag kinda doesn't specify enough, if we wanna go the route for "creating a tag for every sex act ever".

Firstly, cum_inside_mouth is not even a valid tag on e621. The naming implies either cum (which we defined as the liquid) or cumming/orgasm (which we defined as the action).
If the name is vague like this, it will get misused by two parties of people, namely one who wants to see "cum" inside the mouth while the other who wants to see someone "cumming" inside the mouth.
Thus, it will get thrown out and replaced with better naming tags that are more specific, i.e., cum_in_mouth for visible liquid in the mouth and oral_penetration + orgasm/cum for finishing in someone's mouth.

Secondly, we have the Tag What You See (TWYS) policy. I would hate it immensely when I search for cum and do not see any liquid cum because of people who use the tag as you described it.
You never tag cum unless you can visibly see the liquid. Otherwise, you should be using orgasm for the act of climaxing.
Likewise, you never assume cum exists inside an orifice until you can see the liquid. Tagging based on "what you know" is against the TWYS policy.

So I wouldn't call it "willful abuse" or artists/uploaders wanting to get some kinda e6 street cred, its people just tagging what they feel is sensible. Maybe the tag system needs some further slimming down. Maybe people need to step back and not care about a simple mistag that won't register as one for most people perusing this site.

Deliberately ignoring how it is defined is "wilful abuse" and tagging it based on what they want it to be will result in them getting slapped for Tagging Abuse.
If they do not know how a tag is used or defined, they should read the tag's wiki before even using it.

If people do not care how they are used and did however they liked, there is no use in maintaining an accurate tagging system anymore.
Searches and blacklists will break and I can only point to who suggested that idea in the first place.

emionix said:
I understand what you're saying here, but "pedantic" would be a better, more accurate, and less offensive term.

Fair. I'll mind my language a bit, I admit I was feeling a bit bitchy when making that post.

Firstly, cum_inside_mouth is not even a valid tag on e621.

I did mean Cum_in_mouth. I don't have every tag memorized.

If the name is vague like this, it will get misused by two parties of people, namely one who wants to see "cum" inside the mouth while the other who wants to see someone "cumming" inside the mouth.
Thus, it will get thrown out and replaced with better naming tags that are more specific, i.e., cum_in_mouth for visible liquid in the mouth and oral_penetration + orgasm/cum for finishing in someone's mouth.

Okay then, question, what about the drinking_cum and swallowing tags then? Should I only use the drinking_cum tag when I can SEE cum? Otherwise just use swallow? I am genuinely asking because I'm reading the wiki on either and its worded a bit general.

busterdrag said:
Okay then, question, what about the drinking_cum and swallowing tags then? Should I only use the drinking_cum tag when I can SEE cum? ... I am genuinely asking because I'm reading the wiki on either and its worded a bit general.

A little trick is to see what tags it implicates in the wiki. Tag implications automatically add certain tags if this tag is used.
In this case:

• 1) drinking_cum implies cum_in_mouth + drinking,
• 2) cum_in_mouth implies cum_inside,
• 3) cum_inside implies cum.

Thus, drinking_cum indirectly implies cum, which answers your question: "Yes, you should only use the tags if you visibly see cum."

Otherwise just use swallow?

For the sake of explaining, I won't go into detail about the differences between swallowing and drinking.
In this case, swallowing_cum is aliased to drinking_cum, and are thus treated the same.

If you see a character sucking on a penis and then swallowing, do not assume that it is cum. Just tag swallowing as if they are just drinking nothing.
If you see the same scenario but with cum leaking or dripping from their lips, then you can tag it as drinking_cum.