ambiguous_penetration states,

It can also be used in situations in which it's uncertain any form of penetration is occurring at all (e.g. a character is sitting in another character's lap, but it isn't immediately clear that they're having sex). This occurs when the view of the genitals is obstructed either by body parts or objects.

obscured_penetration states,

This will qualify as ambiguous penetration when there is the possibility that the character may have more than one obscured orifice. If the character being penetrated has any of their genitalia visible, or is clearly a male or gynomorph by our gender tagging guidelines, this usually means that penetration is not ambiguous.

In other words, ambiguous_penetration states it can be used for either situations where the penetrated orifice is ambiguous or when it's ambiguous whether penetration is occurring at all, but obscured_penetration states that only the former definition applies to ambiguous_penetration. Which one is correct?

ambiguous_penetration implies penetration, so tagging it "in situations in which it's uncertain any form of penetration is occurring at all" is incorrect.

watsit said:
ambiguous_penetration implies penetration, so tagging it "in situations in which it's uncertain any form of penetration is occurring at all" is incorrect.

Ah, I missed that. Then yes, you're correct. I'll edit the wiki to remove the conflict.

What should be done for images where it is ambiguous whether penetration is occurring? Don't tag anything?

beholding said:
Ah, I missed that. Then yes, you're correct. I'll edit the wiki to remove the conflict.

What should be done for images where it is ambiguous whether penetration is occurring? Don't tag anything?

implied_penetration
Although the implied genre of tags have been getting axed lately
Edit: nevermind this one is already invalid lmao

beholding said:
Ah, I missed that. Then yes, you're correct. I'll edit the wiki to remove the conflict.

What should be done for images where it is ambiguous whether penetration is occurring? Don't tag anything?

Uhh, geez, it's usually pretty clear, but when the contents of the picture is ambiguous, that's basically by definition a gray area for tagging.
post #5273103 <- obscured, but their expressions make it clear it's penetration, so it should be tagged as such
post #2035017 <- Uhh, flip a coin, lol. More seriously, it's currently tagged suggestive but not penetration, and I think that's the right call here.

crocogator said:
Uhh, geez, it's usually pretty clear, but when the contents of the picture is ambiguous, that's basically by definition a gray area for tagging.
post #5273103 <- obscured, but their expressions make it clear it's penetration, so it should be tagged as such
post #2035017 <- Uhh, flip a coin, lol. More seriously, it's currently tagged suggestive but not penetration, and I think that's the right call here.

That first one is a perfect example of why implied_penetration was useful, because it's very clear what's happening, you just can't see it
That second can safely not have the penetration tag as there are no signs of it. The positions of the characters are just suggestive.

nin10dope said:
That first one is a perfect example of why implied_penetration was useful, because it's very clear what's happening, you just can't see it

obscured_sex/offscreen_sex/obscured_penetration are the tags to use for that. obscured_sex vs. obscured_penetration almost feels redundant, but I guess not all sex is penetration and not all penetration is sex, so they can't really be aliased together... Also, if you're wondering if there's an offscreen_penetration tag, it exists, but it has significantly less posts than the other tags.

nin10dope said:
That second can safely not have the penetration tag as there are no signs of it. The positions of the characters are just suggestive.

Yeah, I questioned why I even used that second example immediately after posting it. I was looking for a good "gray area" image for whether sex is happening or not, but it's actually not easy to find (which is probably a good thing for tagging, lol).

crocogator said:
obscured_sex/offscreen_sex/obscured_penetration are the tags to use for that. obscured_sex vs. obscured_penetration almost feels redundant, but I guess not all sex is penetration and not all penetration is sex, so they can't really be aliased together... Also, if you're wondering if there's an offscreen_penetration tag, it exists, but it has significantly less posts than the other tags.
Yeah, I questioned why I even used that second example immediately after posting it. I was looking for a good "gray area" image for whether sex is happening or not, but it's actually not easy to find (which is probably a good thing for tagging, lol).

My problem with obscured_penetration is that my impression upon reading that name is that the obscuring is very purposeful and the intent is coming from the characters, like the characters are using a potted plant or some other obstacle to hide what they're doing from other people in universe. Instead of very clearly sex but the poses just don't show the genitals.

nin10dope said:
My problem with obscured_penetration is that my impression upon reading that name is that the obscuring is very purposeful and the intent is coming from the characters, like the characters are using a potted plant or some other obstacle to hide what they're doing from other people in universe. Instead of very clearly sex but the poses just don't show the genitals.

what you mentioned would be stealth_sex most likely

manitka said:
what you mentioned would be stealth_sex most likely

Yeah
Initially I had a bunch of hypotheticals to pass back to you but then I realized I was literally just describing obscured_penetration/sex
Maybe I'm just being biased towards the implied tags because I remember seeing them first, however long ago that was