The bulk update request #10073 is pending approval.

create alias virgin (1510) -> virgin_(lore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
mass update stated_virginity_in_description -> virgin_(lore)
change category virgin_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing

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 (41) -> blood_from_pussy (858)

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.

If the virgin and defloration tags standards are being enforced to absolutely reflect TWYS, a virginity lore tag becomes a requirement due to the very nature of its importance to narrative.

I don't understand why this is being so heavily resisted.

beholding said:
...And I've run into edge cases almost immediately.

• 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

No, instead those would be tagged with deception or lying or whatever the most popular tag for telling a lie to another is
No matter how portrayed the character is to be a bad liar that other characters are actively seeing though, they still are not stating virginity

nin10dope said:
No, instead those would be tagged with deception or lying or whatever the most popular tag for telling a lie to another is
No matter how portrayed the character is to be a bad liar that other characters are actively seeing though, they still are not stating virginity

Responding to "I'm not X" with "You're lying" is stating the character is X by implication, though.

beholding said:
Responding to "I'm not X" with "You're lying" is stating the character is X by implication, though.

No, it's accusing them of x, which is a deeper level of subtext that goes too abstract to be reliably taggable.

nin10dope said:
No, it's accusing them of x, which is a deeper level of subtext that goes too abstract to be reliably taggable.

Thus demonstrating the need for a lore tag

temp7 said:
Thus demonstrating the need for a lore tag

I think the problem with that is that since lore tags are artist dictated, it would be much more cumbersome to reliably add this hypothetical tag because it's not as simple as finding some refsheet or pronoun used to describe a character. The artist-stated context would need to be cited for every scene (or just be added by the artist in question, which would be the minority of cases)

Artist dictate is not the only way to determine lore. If characters are established to be, say, nonbinary or related in a previous page of a multi-page story, that counts. I see no reason why this can't work the same way.

Also, I must reiterate that I found nearly 200 posts where virginity is mentioned in the description. Artist statements on character virginity are not as vanishingly rare as you claim.

beholding said:
Artist dictate is not the only way to determine lore. If characters are established to be, say, nonbinary or related in a previous page of a multi-page story, that counts. I see no reason why this can't work the same way.

Also, I must reiterate that I found nearly 200 posts where virginity is mentioned in the description. Artist statements on character virginity are not as vanishingly rare as you claim.

Characters being established from parent posts or pools are an extension of the artist's context, so they're still dictating it. Blanket lore implications for any character are not allowed, it has to be at the artist's discretion. And I didn't claim them to be vanishingly rare, I said it would be more cumbersome (compared to other lore tags) because a lot of artists do not write a little aside note to add consent context. A lot do, but that's not an overwhelming majority, and it requires either the uploader to responsibly copy the description over, or for someone contesting that tag to go to the source and ask the artist directly on what they meant in the case of ambiguous language or lack of description.

nin10dope said:
I think the problem with that is that since lore tags are artist dictated, it would be much more cumbersome to reliably add this hypothetical tag because it's not as simple as finding some refsheet or pronoun used to describe a character. The artist-stated context would need to be cited for every scene (or just be added by the artist in question, which would be the minority of cases)

That doesn't make sense. There's no logical reason the artist would need to cite that for every single scene.

Furthermore, inference from context is a thing. This post i know from the artist that the character is meant to be a virgin:

post #5625947

Yet no virgin tag is allowed, or can even be reliably searched thanks to the combination of TWYS and a complete absence of any other applicable tag.

temp7 said:
That doesn't make sense. There's no logical reason the artist would need to cite that for every single scene.

Furthermore, inference from context is a thing. This post i know from the artist that the character is meant to be a virgin:

post #5625947

Yet no virgin tag is allowed, or can even be reliably searched thanks to the combination of TWYS and a complete absence of any other applicable tag.

You misread. The artist doesn't need to cite anything, they're the artist, it's their decision. Other people would need to if they upload the artists work, at least if anyone contests it.
Inference from context is already how we tag non-lore tags like rape. And to your referred to post, it's already established that bleeding from vaginal sex does not equate to virginity loss, only rough/damaging sex (or period sex)

nin10dope said:
And I didn't claim them to be vanishingly rare, I said it would be more cumbersome (compared to other lore tags) because a lot of artists do not write a little aside note to add consent context. A lot do, but that's not an overwhelming majority, and it requires either the uploader to responsibly copy the description over, or for someone contesting that tag to go to the source and ask the artist directly on what they meant in the case of ambiguous language or lack of description.

I fail to see how any of these things are issues. Responsibly copying over the descriptions for posts is just generally good practice that everyone should be doing anyway, and if the situation is ambiguous, just don't tag it. That's how everything else on the site works and people don't consider it "cumbersome".

(Also, why did you say "consent context"? Did you mix this up with the consensual/nonconsensual lore tags discussion?)

Inference from context is already how we tag non-lore tags like rape.

There was a massive argument about that just a few months ago. This is far from settled policy.

nin10dope said:
You misread. The artist doesn't need to cite anything, they're the artist, it's their decision. Other people would need to if they upload the artists work, at least if anyone contests it.
Inference from context is already how we tag non-lore tags like rape. And to your referred to post, it's already established that bleeding from vaginal sex does not equate to virginity loss, only rough/damaging sex (or period sex)

Well I uploaded that post on behalf of the author. According to you i need an explicit statement provided by them to confirm that this is a loss if virginity when that's:

1. Contextually obvious to literally everyone looking at it.
2. Communicated specifically and exactly the visual elements that you declared inconclusive as evidence.

The standard you're proposing is far more inconvenient than the alternative, as I'd need to ask the artist for a provable, explicit statement every time. Should I add a virginity tag or not?

Inference from context is already how we tag non-lore tags like rape.

Then the same should hold for virginity, but it clearly doesn't.

temp7 said:
Well I uploaded that post on behalf of the author. According to you i need an explicit statement provided by them to confirm that this is a loss if virginity when that's:

1. Contextually obvious to literally everyone looking at it.
2. Communicated specifically and exactly the visual elements that you declared inconclusive as evidence.

The standard you're proposing is far more inconvenient than the alternative, as I'd need to ask the artist for a provable, explicit statement every time. Should I add a virginity tag or not?

Then the same should hold for virginity, but it clearly doesn't.

I mean. It's not actually obvious that it's virginity loss instead of just plain rape. Maybe it's obvious to people who have that kink, but it's not obvious if you don't know the intent.

beholding said:
why did you say "consent context"?

I don't remember lmao

regsmutt said:
I mean. It's not actually obvious that it's virginity loss instead of just plain rape. Maybe it's obvious to people who have that kink, but it's not obvious if you don't know the intent.

^ this. Bleeding from the vagina being not directly related to virginity loss is common knowledge these days.

regsmutt said:
I mean. It's not actually obvious that it's virginity loss instead of just plain rape. Maybe it's obvious to people who have that kink, but it's not obvious if you don't know the intent.

Except that people who don't have the kink are indeed interpreting it that way, constantly.

nin10dope said:
^ this. Bleeding from the vagina being not directly related to virginity loss is common knowledge these days.

Then we need a lore tag.

nin10dope said:
I don't remember lmao

^ this. Bleeding from the vagina being not directly related to virginity loss is common knowledge these days.

I'll be honest I wouldn't have even clocked that as blood if it wasn't mentioned. It's the exact same color as the outlines.

temp7 said:
Communicated specifically and exactly the visual elements that you declared inconclusive as evidence.

I'd just like to add that we already have tags for blood_from_pussy and hymen. If that's what you're kinking on, you can just search those. Decoupling them from the virgin tag doesn't impede your ability to do so.

temp7 said:

Inference from context is already how we tag non-lore tags like rape.

Then the same should hold for virginity, but it clearly doesn't.

The problem (I believe) is that the context for virginity is much muddier than rape, so this seems to be where some people want to draw the line

nin10dope said:
The problem (I believe) is that the context for virginity is much muddier than rape, so this seems to be where some people want to draw the line

I'd argue it's the reverse, actually. Rape can be inferred from visual elements such as a distressed expression, while virginity cannot (since we're decoupling it from hymens and bleeding).

beholding said:
I'd just like to add that we already have tags for blood_from_pussy and hymen. If that's what you're kinking on, you can just search those. Decoupling them from the virgin tag doesn't impede your ability to do so.

Im arguing that the current TWYS system is incompatible with any meaningful recognition of virginity outside of a lore tag.

That is, all the elements that historically identified virginity on this site are now not accepted as virginity under TWYS, meaning that virginity simply can no longer be tagged at all because there's "not enough proof" outside an explicit character statement.

Which is transparently ludicrous. The solution is to make it a lore tag.

beholding said:
I'd argue it's the reverse, actually. Rape can be inferred from visual elements such as a distressed expression, while virginity cannot (since we're decoupling it from hymens and bleeding).

Reread what I said lmao
I'm explicitly saying that it's harder to tag virginity off of visual context clues

temp7 said:
Im arguing that the current TWYS system is incompatible with any meaningful recognition of virginity outside of a lore tag.

That is, all the elements that historically identified virginity on this site are now not accepted as virginity under TWYS, meaning that virginity simply can no longer be tagged at all because there's "not enough proof" outside an explicit character statement.

Which is transparently ludicrous. The solution is to make it a lore tag.

I mean, I broadly agree, but stated virginity and virginity symbolism still work for tagging virginity under TWYS. There remain over 1000 posts tagged virgin based on those alone.

Currently, the argument seems to be that virgin shouldn't be a searchable tag at all, which is even more transparently ludicrous, but here we are.

I don't fully remember why I originally down voted this (since it was made nearly half a damn year ago) but I think my main problem and one that might swing other people to upvote it is that the BUR itself is too convoluted/disorganized. Virgin_(lore) as a concept has a valid foundation to stand on. It's a genuine niche and especially effective in pools. But adding a set of gender_virgin_(lore) tags is undesirable for bloat and excess. It might also benefit from being properly combined with the defloration BUR

nin10dope said:
It might also benefit from being properly combined with the defloration BUR

It originally was, but I changed it when I made the suggestion to retire defloration instead, since that's kind of a separate topic.

I don't see why the gendered tags would be an issue. Like it or not, we already have <gender>_virgin tags, so unless you'd prefer we nuke those (and I would very strongly oppose that), they'd need to be converted to lore too.

beholding said:
It originally was, but I changed it when I made the suggestion to retire defloration instead, since that's kind of a separate topic.

I don't see why the gendered tags would be an issue. Like it or not, we already have <gender>_virgin tags, so unless you'd prefer we nuke those (and I would very strongly oppose that), they'd need to be converted to lore too.

Claiming virginity and defloration are separate topics is definitely a hot take.
I have neither a like nor dislike for the gender virgin tags, but they would just get added to virgin, so not exactly a nuke

nin10dope said:
Claiming virginity and defloration are separate topics is definitely a hot take.

"Virgin should be converted to lore" and "defloration should be aliased to virgin" are separate topics.

beholding said:
"Virgin should be converted to lore" and "defloration should be aliased to virgin" are separate topics.

If one happens, it will directly affect the other

nin10dope said:
If one happens, it will directly affect the other

Not really. Whether or not virgin is converted to lore has no bearing on whether or not defloration should be retired, or vice versa.

beholding said:
Not really. Whether or not virgin is converted to lore has no bearing on whether or not defloration should be retired, or vice versa.

I mean practically. If virgin is changed to lore, it will affect defloration's alias to virgin which will then be changed to virgin_(lore)
Or if defloration is aliased first, it will add more posts to this bur

Well, they're already separate BURs, I can't really change that now.

beholding said:
Well, they're already separate BURs, I can't really change that now.

Yeah that's fine lol
I just wanted to point that out

Just had an edit war with a user over several pools where first_orgasm was tagged purely on context from other images in the pool, which they were very surprised to learn was not allowed by the site rules.

I reiterate, once again: There is demand for this.

beholding said:
Just had an edit war with a user over several pools where first_orgasm was tagged purely on context from other images in the pool, which they were very surprised to learn was not allowed by the site rules.

I reiterate, once again: There is demand for this.

I think you'd get a lot more thumbs up if it was just the top three actions in the BUR and cut the rest. Do the simple change first and then work on the others

nin10dope said:
I think you'd get a lot more thumbs up if it was just the top three actions in the BUR and cut the rest. Do the simple change first and then work on the others

I doubt it, but fine.

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

As its own tag it works, but to replace virgin its not a good idea.

beholding said:
Currently, the argument seems to be that virgin shouldn't be a searchable tag at all, which is even more transparently ludicrous, but here we are.

And thats an even bigger problem because I see no point in why we would just get rid of the virgin tag entirely as if its a useless or redundant tag when everything else offered as an alternative is just patently worst than what we have now, or rather 6 months ago. I'm still reading this threads up and down and trying to figure out how we went from trying redefine virginity related tags to trying to get rid of them entirely or for something that is more functionally useless.

dba_afish said:
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.

Why does a lore tag have "prestige" when its suppose to just be a functional system like the rest of the tagging system? Lore is not a prestigious objective to reach, its a statement of a matter of fact. That's it. Idk how we came to this silly conclusion of gatekeeping lore tags like this and now im starting to understand why traction around adding more lore tags get absolutely nowhere. As for being an integral part of a character's identity, that's literally a core pillar of the fetish in the first place. For the character who has never had sex before now in a sexual situation has a bunch of context and influences the perception of the image and character(s). It's about as important as the gender lore tags are with ambiguous looking characters or male/famale characters that look like the opposite gender. same with family and incest lore tags. you seeing that image without the context is totally different once you do have context. That SHOULD BE why lore tags are important. And that should be why virgin should be a lore tag too along with any sort of changes and/or to the virginity and related tags.

burning_house said:
Why does a lore tag have "prestige" when its suppose to just be a functional system like the rest of the tagging system? Lore is not a prestigious objective to reach, its a statement of a matter of fact.

Because the lore category isn't meant to be a dumping ground for anything that can't be tagged by TWYS, but reserved for important information about the characters. The TWYS tagging system is the site's bread and butter, it's what makes it so functional in helping people find what they want to look at or hide what they don't. You can't just add lore tags and retain the same functional system. If lore tags were opened up to anything that's simply "a known fact" that can't be seen in the image, that would end up including a lot of irrelevant stuff that doesn't get tagged as often as it otherwise should, thus be not functional. By limiting lore tags to a subset of important character-related info, that helps keep it functional.

To be clear, I don't think anyone is saying virginity isn't important, it seems to be more a question of whether a lore tag is necessary or if the visual clues often (but not always or exclusively) used to visualize it are good enough for it to work with TWYS.

watsit said:
To be clear, I don't think anyone is saying virginity isn't important, it seems to be more a question of whether a lore tag is necessary or if the visual clues often (but not always or exclusively) used to visualize it are good enough for it to work with TWYS.

Considering that there's some argument not only in this thread but also in the defloration thread? basically arguing to gut the meaning or even just outright scrapping the virgin tag entirely, Im not getting that signal.

watsit said:
By limiting lore tags to a subset of important character-related info, that helps keep it functional.

And imo I think virginity is an important part of a character's information for reasons I explained in my last post. Its not a tag that needs to be slapped on to every single post like some fear it would lead to being. But virginity being a lore tag I think is the only way it can properly function because the concept of virginity is not something you can just see with your own eyes and tell. With the way its defined now its basically something that has to be said because otherwise you just can't know, hence why stated virginity was something that was proposed (though I think it only works as an additional tag, not an actual functional replacement to it).

watsit said:
To be clear, I don't think anyone is saying virginity isn't important, it seems to be more a question of whether a lore tag is necessary or if the visual clues often (but not always or exclusively) used to visualize it are good enough for it to work with TWYS.

If people are arguing virginity doesn't deserve a lore tag, then by your own definition of lore tags they are arguing it's not important. I also remind you that the BUR to nuke the virgin tag entirely currently has five upvotes, one of which is your own.

beholding said:
I also remind you that the BUR to nuke the virgin tag entirely currently has five upvotes, one of which is your own.

Yes, because it's the kind of thing that gets misused when there's no visual indication of virginity beyond a character being young or acting naive, stuff we already have tags for. And the individual gendered variants along with stated_virginity_in_description are too specific or not good. However, stuff like virginity_symbolism and explicitly_stated_virginity I think work better; they make it clear it's about visual elements, the kind of thing a TWYS virginity tag would need, or a character simply explicitly stating their virginity, regardless of the statement being true.

watsit said:
Yes, because it's the kind of thing that gets misused when there's no visual indication of virginity beyond a character being young or acting naive, stuff we already have tags for. And the individual gendered variants along with stated_virginity_in_description are too specific or not good. However, stuff like virginity_symbolism and explicitly_stated_virginity I think work better; they make it clear it's about visual elements, the kind of thing a TWYS virginity tag would need, or a character simply explicitly stating their virginity, regardless of the statement being true.

All the more reason to have virgin as a lore tag instead...