The bulk update request #10073 is pending approval.

create alias virgin (1429) -> virgin_(lore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
create alias stated_virginity_in_description (178) -> virgin_(lore) (0)
change category virgin_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
create alias male_virgin (110) -> male_virgin_(lore) (0)
create alias female_virgin (106) -> female_virgin_(lore) (0)
change category male_virgin_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
change category female_virgin_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
create implication male_virgin_(lore) (0) -> virgin_(lore) (0)
create implication female_virgin_(lore) (0) -> virgin_(lore) (0)

Reason: Virginity is impossible to determine purely visually (even a broken hymen is not definitive), making it outside the scope of TWYS.

For prior discussion, see topic #23515.

For defloration, see topic #55916.

BTR from topic #46451 and the active aliases on defloration
Some prior discussion in topic #45636

Not what lore tags are for, imo

wandering_spaniel said:
Not what lore tags are for, imo

Can you elaborate?

beholding said:
Can you elaborate?

Lore (and meta) category is mostly vibes based. It's not clearly defined, but my opinion of the category is that
Lore is used to label things which are physically not twys or things twys get wrong, about the characters in the post.

beholding said:
Can you elaborate?

I think it's mostly just because the lore category feels to have some amount of prestige behind it, the stuff that gets put in there generally has to feel important or even integral to a character's identity.

also, the relevancy of a character's virginity status feels like it'd only matter if it's made clear by the post itself and otherwise it seems like it'd be kind of weird to tag it. and if it's already made clear by the contents of the post it'd be fine to have it as a general tag.

beholding said:
Can you elaborate?

Lore is kind of 'word/intent of the artist' that otherwise isn't necessarily twys like how characters are related. It's not really for stuff people want to tag, but can't really define in a way that satisfies twys because it's difficult/impossible to represent visually and/or is a concept everyone defines differently.

The virginity/defloration tags as currently used aren't great examples of what a lore tag should be. A significant chunk are people projecting their kink onto images with elements they associate with it, but aren't mutually inclusive. These wouldn't pass lore requirements and should be in sets instead.

I do though think there's room for it as lore- this is something that the artist can intend without it falling into twys. Without explicit dialog (or symbols) it's pretty much impossible to apply strict twys to it without either a significant portion of false positives/negatives. Lore also answers the question of "what about x definition of virginity?" with "virginity means what the artist says."

beholding said:
Can you elaborate?

There are two primary purpose for lore tags.
One is to convey correct (lore-based) information when incorrect (visual-based) information has to be tagged (e.g, tagged as ambiguous_gender but canonically male_(lore)).
The other is for things that "simply cannot be confirmed visually in the image itself, yet still relevant to the post" (e.g., incest).

As it currently stands, the only tags in the second category is the incest-related tags and we have been reluctant in adding more tags to that category.
Whether or not the character's virginity status is relevant to the post is currently up for debate.

dba_afish said:
also, the relevancy of a character's virginity status feels like it'd only matter if it's made clear by the post itself and otherwise it seems like it'd be kind of weird to tag it. and if it's already made clear by the contents of the post it'd be fine to have it as a general tag.

Dialogue and descriptions are outside the scope of TWYS, so virginity cannot be "made clear by the post itself" under TWYS rules. Thus the problem. Even if the policy were changed to permit tagging based on dialogue, there is an issue of pools/comics where dialogue may only clearly establish virginity on one page of many. (pool #20518 is a good demonstration of this, I think.)

As for whether it's valid for a lore tag, the help page states of lore tags:

Conversely, some fetish tags (like incest) cannot always be definitively confirmed through the image itself, and thus belong in the lore category.

I think this is a clear argument in favor of virginity deserving a lore tag. Like incest, it is a fetish that cannot be definitively confirmed through the image itself. If we limit it to author statements and explicit statements in dialogue/description, that should cut down on at least some of the abuse mentioned (such as tagging it on young posts without justification).

beholding said:
Dialogue and descriptions are outside the scope of TWYS, so virginity cannot be "made clear by the post itself" under TWYS rules. Thus the problem.

dialogue is outside of TWYS for strictly visual tags, which most of the general tags are, but not so for dialogue or theme tags. there are already plenty of things like mommy_kink and impregnation_request which are tagged by dialogue exclusively, and stuff like infidelity and rape which are tagged holisticly, taking both visual and textual information into account.

What do people think of a stated virginity tag, then?

beholding said:
What do people think of a stated virginity tag, then?

Great idea, +1

beholding said:
What do people think of a stated virginity tag, then?

+1

beholding said:
What do people think of a stated virginity tag, then?

another +1

I'll see about adding it to existing virgin posts where appropriate, then. The only question remaining is whether virgin itself can remain a lore tag or should be made an invalid tag.

dba_afish said:
dialogue is outside of TWYS for strictly visual tags, which most of the general tags are, but not so for dialogue or theme tags. there are already plenty of things like mommy_kink and impregnation_request which are tagged by dialogue exclusively, and stuff like infidelity and rape which are tagged holisticly, taking both visual and textual information into account.

The thing is, incest and familial relationships can be established through dialogue too, but they're exclusively lore.

...And I've run into edge cases almost immediately.

• post #5282137 features a character being called a virgin by another character, but no word from the supposed virgin himself. Should this count? I've decided this counts.
• post #4151765 is even vaguer, with a character asking if another character is a virgin and getting no response. Should that count? I've decided this counts.
• post #4118114 - A asks if B is a virgin, B profusely denies it with the obvious implication they're lying, to which A says they're lying. Should that count?
• post #2340971 - same issue
• post #5278313 has a character wearing clothing labeled "virgin". Should this count? I've decided this counts.
• post #5269075 only implies virginity in dialogue, but virginity is explicitly stated in the post's description. (This seems like a good use case for "virgin (lore)".) For the moment I've created a temporary stated virginity in description tag so we can come back to these.
• post #5195712 has a character state it's their first kiss, but no statement of other sexual experience. Should that count?
• post #5147059 features "cherry popping" imagery. Should that count? I've decided this doesn't count as stated virginity, but I've created a cherry popping tag for it instead.
• post #4945652 has a character say he's never seen a naked woman before. This doesn't preclude the possibility he's had sex with men, so I don't know if that should count. I've decided to collect these in a set for now.
• pool #31126 is full of similar issues - in context it's clear the characters are virgins, but they never explicitly say they've never had sex before, only strongly imply it. They clearly have never seen the other sex naked before, but that doesn't preclude homosexual activities. (This seems like an excellent case for a virgin_(lore) tag.)
• post #4581668 features what is implied to be one character's sexual partner undergoing a sex change, then saying "this is new to him now". I'm not sure how to tag that.
• post #4983217 only features the idiom "becoming a man" in dialogue. Is that conclusive enough to count? I've decided this doesn't count for now, but I've created a set to store the relevant posts for a potential future tag.
• post #4725494 - I have no idea what's going on here. Some kind of virginity roleplay?
• post #4673952 very strongly implies in dialogue the character has never experienced an orgasm before (to the point I can't imagine how one could interpret it otherwise other than assuming she's outright lying), but it's still only an implication and not explicit.
• post #4641755 - same issue
• post #4336187 - same issue
• post #4061939 - dialogue all but explicitly states character has never masturbated before, but that doesn't preclude having sex
• post #2359764 - same issue
• post #4033061 - same issue
• post #3919594 - same issue
• post #3884006 - girl is afraid sex will hurt; I decided this one counts because I really can't see any other interpretation
• post #4645475 states a character is specifically an anal virgin, but no statement on if they're a general virgin. Should that count?
• post #4642538 brings up the dreaded "What counts as virginity?" question. The characters say they've engaged in fellatio but not anything else. Should that count? For now I've created a set to keep track of these.
• post #4584807 describes a character with "he never scored". Too ambiguous?
• post #4477133 - meta joke implying a character is a virgin because they've never been drawn in porn before. Should that count?
• post #3708195 refers to the inhabitants of a "virgin forest", which the tagger seems to have interpreted to mean the inhabitants are sexual virgins. That doesn't feel definitive enough to count, but I'm leaving it open for now.
• post #3300811 - only "evidence" is vaginal bleeding, but the comic is titled "First Blood", strongly implying it's meant to be interpreted as defloration.
• post #2954835 - character identifies the viewer (who is not pictured) as a virgin.
• post #2802189 has dialogue that seemingly talks about a non-pictured character being a virgin. I don't really know what's going on here, presumably it has something to do with source material lore.
• post #1788918 - dialogue states a character has been "saving herself" for the viewer. I've decided this counts for now.
• post #1279672 - part of a story where unicorns can only have sex with virgins. This would be a good use case for virgin_(lore).
• post #799873 - only "statement" is a character picturing a cherry in a thought bubble.
• post #789993 - "It's like you've never done [sex] before"
• post #670965 refers to the hymen as "her virginity". I've decided this counts for now, but that feels contrary to the argument that hymens shouldn't be considered evidence of virginity.
• post #4677811 similarly seems to be equating the hymen with virginity explicitly in dialogue.
• post #615605 - even with the translation, I have no idea what's going on here.
• post #5311381 depicts a character's first homosexual experience, with no indication if it's their first sexual experience overall.
• post #5297844 denotes virginity through flower imagery rather than cherry_popping imagery. From what I've seen this is exceedingly rare, so I don't know if it warrants its own tag.
• post #3210460 is another one
• post #5382743
• post #4282268 has "virgin no more" written on a character's body, but there's no indication of when she lost her virginity.
• post #4275312 similarly has dialogue stating "[character] was a virgin"
• post #2990531 - same issue
• post #2906995 - same issue
• post #3165727 addresses the viewer as having lost their virginity. Not entirely sure how this should be tagged, since no virgin is pictured.
• post #5124013 - I have no idea how this post is supposed to relate to virginity.
• post #315788 - fantasy story where a character holds a physical representation of virginity.

These questions should probably also be answered for other "stated" tags, while we're at it.

Tangentially, I've discovered there is an implied sexuality tag. Should we have an implied virginity tag for things like ambiguous dialogue and the presence of a hymen, or would that just create a bigger mess?

beholding said:
Tangentially, I've discovered there is an implied sexuality tag. Should we have an implied virginity tag for things like ambiguous dialogue and the presence of a hymen, or would that just create a bigger mess?

Tags like that don't make much sense. To be implied_<something> means there's some visible but inconclusive evidence for something, e.g. implied_transformation relies on visual cues like a feral with oversized or discarded clothing, or a beastly anthro with torn clothing, or a character looking at themself with surprise or confusion (you don't see a transformation, but it's the most likely explanation for what's visible). So "implied sexuality" or "implied virginity" would still need some visible element that potentially indicates sexuality or virginity. However, many implied_<something> tags are a result of <something> not being visible at all and not taggable, and is being asserted by the tagger or artist, trying to sidestep that we don't have a <something>_(lore) tag for something they want to tag but can't because of TWYS.

Apparently implied sexuality is actually not used for any posts, only implied homosexuality. That's definitely a sign it's not a good tag. At most, one could argue that pride pins should be considered implied rather than stated, but even that's questionable. Actually, pride pins are considered stated sexuality according to the wiki, so it's not even useful for that.

That said, a hymen is a pretty clear visible element that potentially indicates virginity, and many posts currently tagged virgin are tagged based on that alone. Granted, I think a hymen tag is a better choice there due to being objective.

post #4833561 (and similar posts) makes me wonder if a virginity kink/virginity fetish tag is warranted. On the one hand we already have foot fetish, nipple fetish, mommy kink, etc. On the other hand, I don't like those tags very much because they run into similar problems to the ones we're seeing with virgin.

beholding said:
That said, a hymen is a pretty clear visible element that potentially indicates virginity, and many posts currently tagged virgin are tagged based on that alone. Granted, I think a hymen tag is a better choice there due to being objective.

Absolutely +1 for just tagging neutrally as hymen or hymen_breaking or whatever. Presence, absence, or condition of a hymen has literally nothing to do with virginity in real life and we shouldn't assume it does in art either (even if that's a common depiction).

Virginity fetish tag along with stated_virginity sounds like a good idea

I just discovered we also have a virginal blood tag. Should that be aliased to blood from pussy? If we're shifting policy to require virginity status be objectively indicated in the image, its use case seems vanishingly slim.

ETA: We also have female_virgin (though oddly no male_virgin), first_time_vaginal, first_time_anal (and first_anal), first_time_fellatio, and first_time_knotting. Also the very (unnecessarily?) specific male_taking_female_virginity. We should probably clean those up as well.

The bulk update request #10122 has been rejected.

create alias virginal_blood (49) -> blood_from_pussy (826)

Reason: Due to opinions shifting that virgin tagging should require a higher burden of proof, the use case of virginal blood over blood from pussy seems vanishingly slim. The tag should be aliased to a more general and objective one.

Alternatively, we could create a hymen rupture tag.

EDIT: The bulk update request #10122 (forum #435986) has been rejected by @Beholding.

The bulk update request #10122 (forum #435986) has been rejected by @Beholding.

I've moved the previous BUR to topic #55190 to relieve some of the clutter in this thread.

Update: I've just finished combing through the virgin and defloration tags and, excepting webm and posts on my blacklist, have brought them in line with a higher standard of proof. This has resulted in slashing the tag counts by about half, but there are still over 1000, which I think is a significant enough number to justify the tag's continued existence. Of those, I've collected remaining edge cases into sets for review. They are:

• Technical Virginity for posts where characters state past sexual experience but still identify as virgins. This is very rare (only 8 posts at time of writing), so I don't believe a separate tag is necessary, but it's something to keep in mind.
• Equating Sex With Adulthood for posts where the only implication of virginity is a character saying "I'll make you a man." I expected there to be more of these, but I've only found 3, so I do not think a separate tag is necessary.
• First Time Parters for posts that explicitly state they are depicting a character's first sexual experience with a specific partner, but with no indication of broader sexual experience. This also includes instances such as a woman saying she's never seen a penis before. I'm inclined to say these could reasonably be tagged stated_virginity, but I'm including it here in case others want to argue differently.
• Ambiguous Virginity for remaining edge cases. These posts typically involve dialogue implying sexual naivety or inexperience, but without explicit confirmation they have never had sex before. These are subjective and thus messy. I don't know if it would be better to only tag these with naive.
• There are a few posts that explicitly take place shortly after a character loses their virginity. I don't know how those should be tagged. Are there users who want to be able to search for this specific scenario, and/or are there users who want to filter it out when searching virgin?

If anyone is interested in contributing to these sets, please message me so I can add you as a contributor.

My conclusions:

1. defloration is an unnecessary tag and should be retired.

virgin +sex has the same functionality, and the name's colloquial meaning of a hymen rupture doubtlessly contributes to mistagging vaginal bleeding as virginity (which was by far the most common mistag scenario). I don't see a reason to keep it as a separate tag.

2. There is definite desire for a virgin_(lore) tag.

I got into edit wars over several posts where characters were (to my understanding) explicitly virgins in the context of a greater canon. These users clearly considered that knowledge important to the posts. Additionally, the stated_virginity_in_description tag currently clocks in at 170, which I think is a significant number. There are also stories such as CinderFrost that use nonstandard indicators of virginity where a lore tag would be useful.

beholding said:

• Equating Sex With Adulthood for posts where the only implication of virginity is a character saying "I'll make you a man." I expected there to be more of these, but I've only found 3, so I do not think a separate tag is necessary.

The should not count as virgin/virginity. It's sketchy enough for a character stating their own virginity status (there are people that think a blowjob or handjob or whatever doesn't count), but a statement by another character that can be vaguely interpreted as meaning that should definitely not warrant a virgin/virginity or even an explicitly_stated_virginity tag.

beholding said:
Additionally, the stated_virginity_in_description tag currently clocks in at 170, which I think is a significant number.

Mostly all added by you. This doesn't seem like a good tag as it would set a precedent to tag things stated in the description, as I'd then expect people want stated_homosexuality_in_description, stated_rape_in_description, stated_young_in_description, stated_adult_in_description, etc, along with it.

watsit said:
Mostly all added by you. This doesn't seem like a good tag as it would set a precedent to tag things stated in the description, as I'd then expect people want stated_homosexuality_in_description, stated_rape_in_description, stated_young_in_description, stated_adult_in_description, etc, along with it.

That's a 'should've been a set' tag for sure, but if the lore tag gets made it can easily get folded in.

regsmutt said:
That's a 'should've been a set' tag for sure, but if the lore tag gets made it can easily get folded in.

That's precisely why I made it separate from stated_virginity, yes. I updated the BUR a while back to include it in the lore switch and never intended it to be a permanent tag. My point that it shows there is use for a lore tag still stands.

I support stated_virginity_in_description being aliased to virgin_(lore) for the sake of being succinct and not tedious to type in

beholding said:
That's precisely why I made it separate from stated_virginity, yes. I updated the BUR a while back to include it in the lore switch and never intended it to be a permanent tag. My point that it shows there is use for a lore tag still stands.

I figured that was what was going on. For future projects though you should know that sets can be moved to tags.

regsmutt said:
I figured that was what was going on. For future projects though you should know that sets can be moved to tags.

I did not know that, thank you.

I support stated_virginity_in_description being aliased to virgin_(lore) for the sake of being succinct and not tedious to type in

To be clear, I can also just manually depopulate it if people really, really don't want to make a virgin_(lore) tag. I don't want people to think I'm forcing their hand.

regsmutt said:
I figured that was what was going on. For future projects though you should know that sets can be moved to tags.

Not very easily, especially as the post count goes up
A few hundred, sure
A thousand, a PITA but doable
Thousands, major PITA that will take a good chunk of time, even scripted
I'm taking all of these from the view of a Privileged user: tag scripting and no edit limit

There isn't any BUR command for stuff like this so all of it has to be semi-manual

Anyone with programming knowledge could of course toss this at a script to chew through with no thought, but the majority of users do not have any knowledge of that and chances are it would be done either manually or via tag scripting, which is still pretty manual

donovan_dmc said:
Not very easily, especially as the post count goes up
A few hundred, sure
A thousand, a PITA but doable
Thousands, major PITA that will take a good chunk of time, even scripted
I'm taking all of these from the view of a Privileged user: tag scripting and no edit limit

There isn't any BUR command for stuff like this so all of it has to be semi-manual

Anyone with programming knowledge could of course toss this at a script to chew through with no thought, but the majority of users do not have any knowledge of that and chances are it would be done either manually or via tag scripting, which is still pretty manual

Huh so they would have to be "manually" moved over? I thought since this was the go to recommendation there was something that could make it go faster.

snpthecat said:
Huh so they would have to be "manually" moved over? I thought since this was the go to recommendation there was something that could make it go faster.

opening a set:NAME search and tag scripting on the new tag

donovan_dmc said:
Not very easily, especially as the post count goes up
A few hundred, sure
A thousand, a PITA but doable
Thousands, major PITA that will take a good chunk of time, even scripted
I'm taking all of these from the view of a Privileged user: tag scripting and no edit limit

There isn't any BUR command for stuff like this so all of it has to be semi-manual

Anyone with programming knowledge could of course toss this at a script to chew through with no thought, but the majority of users do not have any knowledge of that and chances are it would be done either manually or via tag scripting, which is still pretty manual

Huh, I thought there was a way to do it like update set:(number) -> (tag) but I must have misremembered or straight up imagined it. My bad.