The bulk update request #10059 is pending approval.

change category cum_in_top's_ass (50) -> general
create implication cum_in_top's_ass (50) -> cum_in_ass (149700)

Reason: That tag seems to have been marked as invalid a few months ago with no prior discussion, but I would like to rescue it from there. IMO, this tag is better than the alternatives of versatile and role_reversal and top_turned_bottom because it makes no assumptions about what's going on, it merely describes what can be seen.

The main point I can see pending regarding such a tag is whether a lucky_pierre can be considered a top for the purposes of tagging, making most train_position posts count under that tag by default.

EDIT: There's also the question of whether that tag should actually be renamed cum_from_top's_ass, to be in line with the nomenclature used elsewhere.

"top" is too ambiguous in this context. Does it mean a power_bottom with cum in their ass? Or a character with cum in their ass that is physically on top of another?

watsit said:
"top" is too ambiguous in this context. Does it mean a power_bottom with cum in their ass? Or a character with cum in their ass that is physically on top of another?

"Top" is usually understood as the person who's "pitching" anal/vaginal/oral/whatever. I don't think there's any ambiguity in that regard.

fifteen said:
"Top" is usually understood as the person who's "pitching" anal/vaginal/oral/whatever. I don't think there's any ambiguity in that regard.

that is one context, sure, but also what if someone is riding another? like cowgirl style, they are actively "on top".
and thats the way the site uses top.

https://e621.net/posts?tags=female_on_top

manitka said:
that is one context, sure, but also what if someone is riding another? like cowgirl style, they are actively "on top".
and thats the way the site uses top.

https://e621.net/posts?tags=female_on_top

I mean that's like being pedantic about "prey" sometimes referring to lions and such, even tough they are on top of the food chain in their natural habitat, because "prey" on e6 is almost always used to refer to the role in a vore situation. Likewise, "top" when referring to a person pretty much exclusively refers to a top-bottom pair (similar but distinct to a dom-sub pair). It wouldn't be incorrect to have something like a "bottom on top" tag, even though that wording would get really confusing really fast.

fifteen said:
I mean that's like being pedantic about "prey" sometimes referring to lions and such, even tough they are on top of the food chain in their natural habitat, because "prey" on e6 is almost always used to refer to the role in a vore situation. Likewise, "top" when referring to a person pretty much exclusively refers to a top-bottom pair (similar but distinct to a dom-sub pair). It wouldn't be incorrect to have something like a "bottom on top" tag, even though that wording would get really confusing really fast.

The analogy doesn't work. As you say, "that wording would get really confusing really fast", which it wouldn't if most people were on the same page as to the meaning of "top" and "bottom". We don't tag "prey" or "predator" based on a species' given role in the food chain, so it can't refer to anything but their role in vore. In contrast, top isn't "almost exclusively always used" to refer to the penetrating character, if anything it's the other way around here; we try to avoid using "top" and "bottom" to refer to penetration dynamics and prefer to use it in reference to physical positioning (e.g. female_on_top, larger_on_top). x_penetrating (e.g. male_penetrating) and x_penetrated (e.g. smaller_penetrated) are the way we refer to who's penetrating or being penetrated.

fifteen said:
I mean that's like being pedantic about "prey" sometimes referring to lions and such, even tough they are on top of the food chain in their natural habitat, because "prey" on e6 is almost always used to refer to the role in a vore situation. Likewise, "top" when referring to a person pretty much exclusively refers to a top-bottom pair (similar but distinct to a dom-sub pair). It wouldn't be incorrect to have something like a "bottom on top" tag, even though that wording would get really confusing really fast.

agree to disagree. this tag might be useful, but i think the name needs to be changed. top on this site is who is physically on top, whether they are being penetrated or not.

if anything I think cum_(in/from)_dominant's_ass would be better

fifteen said:
"Top" is usually understood as the person who's "pitching" anal/vaginal/oral/whatever. I don't think there's any ambiguity in that regard.

I'm fairly confident that those definitions of "top" and "bottom" are not well known outside of the gay community (and probably even the male gay community). they're euphemisms. specifically, they're euphemisms meant to obfuscate the language since homosexuality was not acceptable in the time in which they were coined.

personally, I don't think I'd actually got what they meant until like uhh-- whenever DoorDash or someone did that fuckin' weird "bottom-friendly menu" promotion for pride month several years ago and a gay YouTuber I watch talked about it. prior to that I thought it was more of a dom/sub thing every time I'd seen the tag.

also, there definitely has been at least some discussion on this tag/this terminology previously: topic #34363

fifteen said:
I mean that's like being pedantic about "prey" sometimes referring to lions and such, even tough they are on top of the food chain in their natural habitat, because "prey" on e6 is almost always used to refer to the role in a vore situation. Likewise, "top" when referring to a person pretty much exclusively refers to a top-bottom pair (similar but distinct to a dom-sub pair). It wouldn't be incorrect to have something like a "bottom on top" tag, even though that wording would get really confusing really fast.

I'm not the biggest fan of using the terms "pred" and "prey" either, diffrence there is that there's not really any other words that effectively describe the situations that those terms are for.

manitka said:
if anything I think cum_(in/from)_dominant's_ass would be better

I think that would be too easily misused for cum in a penetrating character's ass, like this, or cum in the ass of a character who normally penetrates, where there's no dom/sub stuff. The dominant and dominant_x tags (and submissive and submissive_x) are misused a lot as it is to refer to mere penetrative sex, or for characters that ostensibly have a dominant or submissive personality, without any BDSM/dom/sub activity visible.

manitka said:
agree to disagree. this tag might be useful, but i think the name needs to be changed. top on this site is who is physically on top, whether they are being penetrated or not.

I suppose that's fair.

watsit said:
The analogy doesn't work. As you say, "that wording would get really confusing really fast", which it wouldn't if most people were on the same page as to the meaning of "top" and "bottom". We don't tag "prey" or "predator" based on a species' given role in the food chain, so it can't refer to anything but their role in vore.

There has been proposals in the past to disambiguate all vore-related prey tags (which IMO would be terrible), but right now the only tag that relies on that interpretation is predator/prey_relationship, so I don't think there's much "terminology overloading" going on in that regard, especially given "pred" is always shortened.

dba_afish said:
also, there definitely has been at least some discussion on this tag/this terminology previously: topic #34363

I apparently was part of that conversation, yet I have zero recollection of it.

watsit said:
In contrast, top isn't "almost exclusively always used" to refer to the penetrating character, if anything it's the other way around here; we try to avoid using "top" and "bottom" to refer to penetration dynamics and prefer to use it in reference to physical positioning (e.g. female_on_top, larger_on_top). x_penetrating (e.g. male_penetrating) and x_penetrated (e.g. smaller_penetrated) are the way we refer to who's penetrating or being penetrated.

Yeah, ok, point taken. I guess I'm too used to seeing those in fixed expression tags like "power bottom" instead of composable patterns.

watsit said:
I think that would be too easily misused for cum in a penetrating character's ass, like this, or cum in the ass of a character who normally penetrates, where there's no dom/sub stuff. The dominant and dominant_x tags (and submissive and submissive_x) are misused a lot as it is to refer to mere penetrative sex, or for characters that ostensibly have a dominant or submissive personality, without any BDSM/dom/sub activity visible.

Yeah, I agree on that. If the wording of that tag is to be changed, we should take care not to change its meaning. Re-reading the thread from 2 years ago, there just seems to be a gap in terminology where the best current alternative to cum_in_top's_ass would be cum_in_penetrator's_ass (which relies on the ever-nebulous definition of penetration) or cum_in_catcher's_ass (which uses less established words).

Is cum_in_top's_ass really that ambiguous that we can't make some sort of pattern exception for it?

fifteen said:
or cum_in_catcher's_ass (which uses less established words).

catcher is colloquially the bottom. the top would be the pitcher.

fifteen said:
Is cum_in_top's_ass really that ambiguous that we can't make some sort of pattern exception for it?

Since "top" is easily misunderstood to mean a penetrating character instead of a character's physical placement, I think it's best to not make exceptions that will compound the misunderstanding and increase misuse for other tags with "top" or "bottom" (especially when it itself would be prone to misuse). It would also likely lead to more people trying to make tags with "top" referring to a penetrating character since it would create a precedent for it. I don't see how cum_in_penetrator's_ass would be all that confusing, "penetrator" isn't nearly as ambiguous as x_penetration can be.

I like cum_in_penetrator's_ass more, far less ambiguity. Unwieldy, but not too bad for a relatively niche concept.

I just find it weird, given there's only a single other tag that uses "penetrator" like this, which is small_penis_penetrator, with 6 posts and no wiki. On the other hand, we have muscular_top (1.6k posts), leashed_top (820 posts), service_top (450 posts), bound_top (380 posts), overweight_top (325 posts), submissive_top (270 posts) and forced_to_top (100 posts) with 100+ posts, all of which have wikis and all of which rely on this definition of "top".

Are they all wrong to use "top" like this?

EDIT: Also small_top_big_bottom (3.7k posts), top_pov (168 posts, no wiki), top_hole (148 posts) and top_in_heels (116, no wiki).

fifteen said:
I just find it weird, given there's only a single other tag that uses "penetrator" like this, which is small_penis_penetrator, with 6 posts and no wiki. On the other hand, we have muscular_top (1.6k posts), leashed_top (820 posts), service_top (450 posts), bound_top (380 posts), overweight_top (325 posts), submissive_top (270 posts) and forced_to_top (100 posts) with 100+ posts, all of which have wikis and all of which rely on this definition of "top".

Are they all wrong to use "top" like this?

really they should be aliased to better tags, yes.

manitka said:
really they should be aliased to better tags, yes.

6 posts versus 104 pages, though? It's not like these were obscure tags based on an obscure terminology.

fifteen said:
6 posts versus 104 pages, though? It's not like these were obscure tags based on an obscure terminology.

yeah i get that. but it conflicts with the other "top" tags.