The tag implication #66301 human_fetish -> species_fetish is pending approval.

Reason: One is a subtype of the other.

It is bad practice to be starting alias/implication requests on tags that are newly created and barely discussed about.
These ought to be discussed on a dedicated thread even before using them on posts.

I question the validity of species_fetish, species_play, and other related tags.
Do these even meet the TWYS policy? Most of the tagging criteria seem to allude to text-based information and situational context (e.g., comparing penis size).

If human_fetish is "sexual or romantic interest in humans", doesn't that essentially encompass all human_on_* tags?
And if the counterargument is for the interest to be specifically directed at humans, why is the focus on humans specifically?
In the case of forms, are we going to have a anthro_fetish/feral_fetish/etc. tag for the opposite scenario?
Alternatively, in the case of species, are we going to have a canine_fetish/mammal_fetish/etc.?

These ought to be discussed on a dedicated thread even before using them on posts.

I created a thread on the topic 2 days ago, but it didn't seem to garner much attention one way or the other.

Do these even meet the TWYS policy? Most of the tagging criteria seem to allude to text-based information and situational context (e.g., comparing penis size).

I've seen conflicting opinions on this. Some users have said using text-based information is valid for certain tags such as rape.

If human_fetish is "sexual or romantic interest in humans", doesn't that essentially encompass all human_on_* tags?

The wiki pages states that it involves fetishizing some aspect of humans in particular, so no.

In the case of forms, are we going to have a anthro_fetish/feral_fetish/etc. tag for the opposite scenario?
Alternatively, in the case of species, are we going to have a canine_fetish/mammal_fetish/etc.?

If there's cause to use them (such as appearing in many posts), yes. If not, no.

thegreatwolfgang said:
It is bad practice to be starting alias/implication requests on tags that are newly created and barely discussed about.
These ought to be discussed on a dedicated thread even before using them on posts.

I question the validity of species_fetish, species_play, and other related tags.
Do these even meet the TWYS policy? Most of the tagging criteria seem to allude to text-based information and situational context (e.g., comparing penis size).

If human_fetish is "sexual or romantic interest in humans", doesn't that essentially encompass all human_on_* tags?
And if the counterargument is for the interest to be specifically directed at humans, why is the focus on humans specifically?
In the case of forms, are we going to have a anthro_fetish/feral_fetish/etc. tag for the opposite scenario?
Alternatively, in the case of species, are we going to have a canine_fetish/mammal_fetish/etc.?

Come on now, there's nothing particularly arcane about this. It's an interspecies equivalent to raceplay/queen of spades stuff.

human_fetish -human
human_on_* -human_fetish
she_looks_like_she_fucks
feral_temptation -sex

Draft some non-human/non-feral equivalents if it bothers you so much.

lafcadio said:
Draft some non-human/non-feral equivalents if it bothers you so much.

I'm afraid this could lead to undesirable bloat. "Human" is a special species here because it's also a form y otras cositas más tho, so I support the exception

beholding said:
I created a thread on the topic 2 days ago, but it didn't seem to garner much attention one way or the other.

That outwardly looks like a question about tagging speciesism rather than a thread asking about the creation of a new series or *_fetish tags.

I've seen conflicting opinions on this. Some users have said using text-based information is valid for certain tags such as rape.

Yes, there are a handful of exceptions where some tags can rely on text-based information, such as pet_praise or profanity.
However, we almost never ever use text-based information as a tagging criteria as what is visually depicted may not be accurate to what is being spoken in dialogue.

For example, I could depict a character wearing a "I fucking love humans!" shirt and then have them brutally murder humans for sport.
This would not fit the human_fetish theme at all, yet be technically eligible due to it being text.

I am still of the opinion that tagging based on text should be avoided as much as possible.
If people believe this is one of those exceptions, then they are free to place their support.

The wiki pages states that it involves fetishizing some aspect of humans in particular, so no.

It is hard to define what is human fetishising, except if you relied on text as mentioned before.

For example, an anthro could be doing penis_worship or foot_worship on a human without explicitly stating their love about humans (e.g., "Gosh, your cock/feet is amazing!") and it could be considered as human_fetish.

If there's cause to use them (such as appearing in many posts), yes. If not, no.

I'm sure there are many text-based cases for various other species, but we do not tag them.

lafcadio said:
Come on now, there's nothing particularly arcane about this. It's an interspecies equivalent to raceplay/queen of spades stuff.

I just realised you are the one that introduced human_fetish and its current wiki iteration.
I would apologise to @Beholding if I misplaced any judgement relating to the tagging criteria, since this looks like it was lifted entirely from your wiki.

I would say human_fetish looks to be the fetishised version of reverse_furry, so it should be aliased or implied to that.
However, that also looks to be tagging based on text, so I wouldn't touch it at all.

On another note, I have always been iffy about the raceplay stuff since there is no working tagging criteria for it, and the subtags specifically only caters to a few select species (i.e., humans and pony).

human_fetish -human
human_on_* -human_fetish
she_looks_like_she_fucks
feral_temptation -sex

I would allow she_looks_like_she_fucks since it is a meme/copyright tag, but everything else looks a bit eh.

Draft some non-human/non-feral equivalents if it bothers you so much.

gattonero2001 said:
I'm afraid this could lead to undesirable bloat. "Human" is a special species here because it's also a form y otras cositas más tho, so I support the exception

I'm not advocating for another series of *_fetish tags for other species since this whole mess revolves around tagging based on text.

However, in this case since we are all inline with not wanting more tags, we do not need a species_fetish umbrella tag if we are only going to have human_fetish as the sole exception.

thegreatwolfgang said:
For example, I could depict a character wearing a "I fucking love humans!" shirt and then have them brutally murder humans for sport.
This would not fit the human_fetish theme at all, yet be technically eligible due to it being text.

I am still of the opinion that tagging based on text should be avoided as much as possible.
If people believe this is one of those exceptions, then they are free to place their support.

no reasonable user would tag like that.

dba_afish said:
no reasonable user would tag like that.

You are not considering the masochism/torture part of the fetish.

As far as I can tell, a character showing an interest or have sexual arousal in torturing humans (e.g., "I always love humans because they bleed/struggle a lot.") would be eligible for the tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I would say human_fetish looks to be the fetishised version of reverse_furry, so it should be aliased or implied to that.
However, that also looks to be tagging based on text, so I wouldn't touch it at all.

Robots, aliens, elves, etc. are perfectly capable of human_fetish stuff but they don't always count as furry. If we nevertheless consider the two tags to be closely related, could a tag like human_fascination serve as an implication shared by the two?

There's also hominophilia. That should probably be aliased away (or be used as the common implication) if we're going to have these kinds of tags.

lafcadio said:
Robots, aliens, elves, etc. are perfectly capable of human_fetish stuff but they don't always count as furry. If we nevertheless consider the two tags to be closely related, could a tag like human_fascination serve as an implication shared by the two?

There's also hominophilia. That should probably be aliased away (or be used as the common implication) if we're going to have these kinds of tags.

If given the choice, I would toss everything into one single human_fascination tag since we do not need different subtags to indicate the various levels of human fascination.

P.S.: Remember to toss out human'd as well.

thegreatwolfgang said:
As far as I can tell, a character showing an interest or have sexual arousal in torturing humans (e.g., "I always love humans because they bleed/struggle a lot.") would be eligible for the tag.

I mean, in concept that dosn't really seem like a problem to me. as long they're fetishizing something they consider to be a uniquely human trait, it seems like it'd be human fetish.

but that example is a little diffrent from what you first gave; it has to be a little bit more explicit than a possibly ironic t-shirt.

dba_afish said:
but that example is a little diffrent from what you first gave; it has to be a little bit more explicit than a possibly ironic t-shirt.

Then, you can see the inherent problem with tagging based on text, right?
For example, the scenario I gave vs. post #3692558 (which is currently tagged as human_fetish).

The bulk update request #10152 is pending approval.

create alias human'd (3) -> human_fetish (141)
create alias hominophilia (19) -> human_fetish (141)

Reason: Collecting similar tags.

I think reverse furry should be kept separate because it encompasses more aspects than just a sexual fetish for humans, but the description should probably be revised to make the distinction clearer.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Then, you can see the inherent problem with tagging based on text, right?
For example, the scenario I gave vs. post #3692558 (which is currently tagged as human_fetish).

I don't see the problem with this post in particular being tagged human_fetish, no.

I'm just gonna link this here: forum #435626. because this kinda extends to the problem with using clothes a character is wearing to tag external concepts on its own in general.

in the example given we can reasonably assume that the character is wearing the shirt of her own volition and that she understands what the shirt says and she's even flaunting the text of the shirt.

dba_afish said:
I'm just gonna link this here: post #435626. because this kinda extends to the problem with using clothes a character is wearing to tag external concepts on its own in general.

in the example given we can reasonably assume that the character is wearing the shirt of her own volition and that she understands what the shirt says and she's even flaunting the text of the shirt.

she's not wearing a shirt tho?

gattonero2001 said:
she's not wearing a shirt tho?

whoops, that was supposed to be a forum # link, I cut the wrong bit out of the URL that I'd copied.