The tag alias #75795 sexual_posturing -> lordosis is pending approval.

Reason: "sexual posturing" is the common term that is familiar to me. It took me a bit of searching among the existing tags to find "lordosis" which is the scientific term. For example the PEGI website uses the term "sexual posturing" when describing their PEGI 12 rating. Furthermore, the word "lordosis" can be confused for a kind of spinal deformity, as the same word is used for it :)

intrspace said:
The tag alias #75795 sexual_posturing -> lordosis is pending approval.

Reason: "sexual posturing" is the common term that is familiar to me. It took me a bit of searching among the existing tags to find "lordosis" which is the scientific term. For example the PEGI website uses the term "sexual posturing" when describing their PEGI 12 rating. Furthermore, the word "lordosis" can be confused for a kind of spinal deformity, as the same word is used for it :)

Both names are terrible.

There is no universal definition for sexual_posturing, nor has it seen any use on e621.
If taken literally, it is simply just a (vague) posture to have sex in, which could mean any of the sex position tags.
Moreover, I don't think PEGI was thinking of the lordosis behaviour specifically when using that term, could just be any sexually-suggestive position.

On the other hand, lordosis is as you have said could be confused with a spinal deformity, so the vague term should not be used for describing something specific.
A more accurate term would be lordosis_behaviour, but existing tags (i.e., ass_up, presenting_hindquarters, all_fours) would have made this tag redundant or of questionable validity.

thegreatwolfgang said:

On the other hand, lordosis is as you have said could be confused with a spinal deformity, so the vague term should not be used for describing something specific.
A more accurate term would be lordosis_behaviour, but existing tags (i.e., ass_up, presenting_hindquarters, all_fours) would have made this tag redundant or of questionable validity.

But we do have the lordosis tag, and "sexual posturing" is the common synonym. It's when the female assumes the position to facilitate copulation. If the lordosis tag is redundant, then shouldn't it be aliased to "presenting"?

intrspace said:
But we do have the lordosis tag, and "sexual posturing" is the common synonym. It's when the female assumes the position to facilitate copulation. If the lordosis tag is redundant, then shouldn't it be aliased to "presenting"?

And I'm saying that it should either be renamed to lordosis_behaviour or invalidated if there is no need for this tag, since there are already existing tags that describe the position adequately.
And no, lordosis to presenting is a bad alias since they don't mean what you think it means. The closest tag that best describes it is presenting_hindquarters.

intrspace said:
But we do have the lordosis tag, and "sexual posturing" is the common synonym. It's when the female assumes the position to facilitate copulation. If the lordosis tag is redundant, then shouldn't it be aliased to "presenting"?

"Lordosis" is a somewhat obscure term. I was today years old when I first heard it, and it's not clear at all what it means (especially given the current wiki only linking to animal_genitalia, anatomically_correct, feral, and feral_on_feral as related tags, when they're completely unrelated; though even then, ideally we shouldn't rely on the wiki to get a basic understanding of some tag... if it's that obscure it's unlikely to be used correctly and/or all that much). A tag like lordosis_behavior would be similarly obscure. sexual_posturing sounds like something that could apply to any pose where the character is either being seductive or (potentially on accident) presenting or posing in a way that could be inferred as sexual (a character by happenstance ends up kneeling by another's crotch, and an uninformed bystander may think they were about to have oral sex).

Neither presenting or ass_up would be valid for cases like post #5383777 (presenting doesn't apply when the thing is "in use", and ass_up doesn't apply when the butt is at roughly the same height or lower than the chest or head). The tag looks like a confusing mess: in some instances it looks like ass_up without an arched_back, like post #3247791, and in others it's arched_back without ass_up, like post #2482164. Or in some cases, it's just the jack-o' pose (or yoga poses routinely confused for it), like post #2893779. Honestly, given the variety of distinct poses under the tag:
post #3247784 post #1806508 post #2287574 post #4445321 post #5383699
it doesn't seem to be following what the wikipedia article describes, which seems to be saying it's roughly a combination of all_fours or quadruped + ass_up + arched_back + tail_aside or raised_tail (where the back arch isn't too severe, the ass isn't too high, and the orifice is at a slight upward angle). The tag probably should just be wiped (ensuring the other relevant tags are added to posts) if it's not easily understood.

Geez, it's already been over a year since I first saw that tag being used here.
Hmm, the closest equivalent I've seen is ass-up head-down/top-down bottom-up or similar on some sites.