The dominant and submissive tags are used extremely broadly, often simply being used as synonyms for "topping" and "bottoming". The wiki page for dominant is quite broad, but does conclude with what I think is a good rule of thumb:

A general test for domination/submission is whether there is an imbalance of power, whether it be real (held at spear point) or permitted (holding a leash).

However, even this can be broad and subjective. Technically, all adult_on_young, teacher/student, unprofessional_behavior, etc. relationships can be said to feature an "imbalance of power"; where do we draw the line? It's also often tagged with size_difference, even in images with no restraints or obvious power imbalance, such as post #5450930.

Getting every user to read the wiki and obey the definitions is probably a hopeless battle, but I wonder if we could at least revise the wiki pages to lay out clearer definitions and boundaries?

IMO, dom/sub tags should only apply where bdsm, bound, pinned, or some other act of domineering also does. The tags are way overused, yes, often just for normal penetrative sex, but also even just depictions of characters that are said to have dominant or submissive personality, or typically take an assertive or passive role in sexual encounters (non-TWYS). But given how often they're misused and how badly mistagged they already are, I don't have much hope for the tags getting cleaned up to a respectable state.

It occurs to me that this line from the dominant wiki page may be a big culprit:

Tag also applies if the theme of domination is present in the image.

This is incredibly vague and subjective. What is a "theme of domination"? I think this line should just be removed outright.

watsit said:
IMO, dom/sub tags should only apply where bdsm, bound, pinned, or some other act of domineering also does.

Would you say mind_control counts?

post #5451191 post #5449872

These images, for example, feature no physical restraint, but do feature hypnosis to make the partner act submissive.

I'm also unsure about this image:

post #5449899

This doesn't look overtly domineering to me, but the smaller character is being held in midair, which would make it hard for them to escape. Does that count as restrained?

beholding said:
Would you say mind_control counts?

As long as it's relatively clear they're not acting of their own will, sure.

beholding said:
I'm also unsure about this image:

post #5449899

This doesn't look overtly domineering to me, but the smaller character is being held in midair, which would make it hard for them to escape. Does that count as restrained?

I'd probably say no, since she doesn't appear to be acting against her will. Even if she couldn't escape, she's clearly not trying to resist and appears to be enjoying it, without any apparent distress.

post #395710

Does it make sense to tag submissive on a character who is clearly resisting their submission, as here? The image is clearly evocative of a submissive BDSM aesthetic, but I don't know how to factor the character's behavior into it.

beholding said:
It occurs to me that this line from the dominant wiki page may be a big culprit:

This is incredibly vague and subjective. What is a "theme of domination"? I think this line should just be removed outright.

Would you say mind_control counts?

No, mind control does not count, as one does not have to be dominant to use it on others. The theme of domination is that of taking away another person's agency over themselves or others. It is criminally overused but that's the fault of people, not the term.

beholding said:
post #395710

Does it make sense to tag submissive on a character who is clearly resisting their submission, as here? The image is clearly evocative of a submissive BDSM aesthetic, but I don't know how to factor the character's behavior into it.

If they're actively struggling or resisting or fighting_back (those should be aliased to one thing imo) then they are not Submissive. That specific image is the Bound in BDSM though.
Dominant != Penetrating
Submissive != Receiving
^Edit: for some reason I thought that strikethrough would show up on equal signs lmao, I mean Does Not Equal

nin10dope said:
If they're actively struggling or resisting or fighting_back (those should be aliased to one thing imo) then they are not Submissive.

As long as they're kept under control, they're being made to submit, even if they're struggling. As long as there's no indication they're getting free, a character struggling is a good indication that they're submissive, rather than receptive, which it's all too often misused for.

If they're actively fighting back, then they are not under control. In the case of your argument, being unable to break free (i.e. powerless) is not submitting. Accepting (even if just outwardly) is submitting

nin10dope said:
In the case of your argument, being unable to break free (i.e. powerless) is not submitting. Accepting (even if just outwardly) is submitting

Being made to submit is submitting. Accepting it opens up a nice gray area (Stockholm syndrome, actually realizing they like it, or are just playing along), where their willingness to engage becomes ambiguous and what you see can conflict with what you know.

watsit said:
Being made to submit is submitting. Accepting it opens up a nice gray area (Stockholm syndrome, actually realizing they like it, or are just playing along), where their willingness to engage becomes ambiguous and what you see can conflict with what you know.

That's what I'm saying lmao
Fighting back isn't being made to submit
Made to take it, but the submission should be on their behalf, not the person dominating them
Otherwise almost every post using dominant would require submissive
Although now I'm getting a little too mentally worn out to think about how and when they could be separate

nin10dope said:
Fighting back isn't being made to submit

Sure, fighting back (and to some degree resisting) indicates the character not being fully under control (yet) and are able to prevent the thing from happening (for now). But once they are under control and can't stop the thing from happening, that doesn't mean they stop struggling despite being submitted.

But if the character accepts the thing happening to them and stops struggling, you get into a grey area; if they don't not want it, if they now don't care or do want it, is they really submissive (for the purposes of dom/sub) if they're not visibly unwilling? You get into territories of mind_break or until_they_like_it, where there can still be visible elements that shows deep down they still don't actually want it, but there might not be, and it gets more subjective and unclear. Especially if things happen across multiple pages in a comic or something, since you tag each post individually not using information from previous pages.

nin10dope said:
Otherwise almost every post using dominant would require submissive
Although now I'm getting a little too mentally worn out to think about how and when they could be separate

Things like this can be submissive without dominant:
post #168807 post #3771316
A character being bound and controlled, without the character holding them bound visible. The reverse could also happen, a character holding rope or a leash that's tied to someone out of view.

nin10dope said:
No, mind control does not count, as one does not have to be dominant to use it on others. The theme of domination is that of taking away another person's agency over themselves or others. It is criminally overused but that's the fault of people, not the term.

Is mind control not the very definition of taking away another person's agency?

beholding said:
Is mind control not the very definition of taking away another person's agency?

Through mental voodoo magic stuffs, sure, potentially (there's plenty of art of people being physically controlled where their thought bubbles show that their mind is still their own)
But I would think that's getting too abstract for the purpose of the dominant tag

watsit said:
Things like this can be submissive without dominant:
post #168807 post #3771316
A character being bound and controlled, without the character holding them bound visible. The reverse could also happen, a character holding rope or a leash that's tied to someone out of view.

No to the first one, yes to the second. The first one is just bound for simplicity's sake.