The bulk update request #11057 is active.

remove alias bustyboy (0) -> intersex (264794)
create alias busty_boy (0) -> busty_boy_(lore) (594)

Reason: post #3442454

• A few different characters including Phyco and P.B. are occasionally described as busty boys in e621's comments (this seems to be more common on F-List and Furaffinity, which have policies/tools that facilitate searching these kinds of characters.) They're characters intended to present as masculine despite the presence of breasts, but the mechanisms behind tagging gender here mean they're particularly prone to getting different gender tags between posts with similar artistic intent.
• Phyco is supposed to have a pussy, and a lot of the time it's obvious to viewers. A character with both breasts and pussy is likely to be treated as female.
• P.B. is supposed to have a penis, and there are plenty of upper body shots where it's not obvious. Upper body shots of P.B. are traditionally female, but full body shots regularly fall in gynomorph territory.
• At any point a masculine herm character could come along and have posts containing breasts, penis, and pussy all at once, becoming either female, gynomorph, herm, or maleherm depending on the post's framing.
• post #5517840 appears to consist of two busty boy characters, based on text and the artist's submission title, but TWYS suggests the right character is female.
• The current alias causes uploaders to post images that are only intersex with none of the specific genders like gynomorph, maleherm, or andromorph (again, see post #5517840.) "Intersex" is an umbrella tag to begin with, we would really prefer for people to tag the actual genders instead, and busty_boy_(lore) by itself would be easier to clean up than intersex -gynomorph -andromorph -herm -maleherm.
• Under current mechanisms, users who blacklist bustyboy or intersex will still see female versions of these characters. Separating busty boy (lore) from intersex creates more options for everyone: search posts that only have guys with tits by including it, search posts that only have feminine gynomorphs by excluding it, etc.

The actual implementation should be that busty boy (lore) becomes a supplementary tag for "primary" genders.

• A male character whose boobs aren't visible would be a completely normal male busty_boy_(lore), and similar for andromorphs.
• P.B. is usually male_(lore) busty_boy_(lore), given that he is a masculine character with a penis and breasts, but usually looks like a female or gynomorph.
• Phyco is usually andromorph_(lore) busty_boy_(lore), given that he is a masculine character with a pussy and breasts, but usually looks like a female.
• A trans man without top surgery could be trans_man_(lore) busty_boy_(lore) if they have obvious boobage.
• Consequently, one could find trans men with smaller/flat chests by excluding busty boys or including the correct general tags.

easiest part two of your life

alias bustyboy -> busty_boy_(lore)

quick wiki draft here

A busty boy is intended to be a masculine character with substantial breast growth, regardless of their visible features. The presence of breasts usually results in such a character being treated as a female or gynomorph according to TWYS, but a busty boy may also include male (lore), andromorph (lore), or trans man (lore) among their lore tags.
While real conditions such as gynecomastia exist, busty boys are usually more fantastical or extreme; they often have the size and form of medium breasts or larger, and they may wear a bra or be able to lactate.

See Also:

• gynomorph
• male_(lore)
• andromorph_(lore)
• maleherm_(lore)
• trans_(lore)
• trans_man_(lore)

EDIT: The bulk update request #11057 (forum #448734) has been approved by @spe.

+1 I actually really like this compromise. Bustyboy is a tag that is too vague and hard to confine to the "proper" TWYS rules, but it's also a subject that has utility as a lore tag - for searching, blacklisting, etc.

I think that the alias should be removed and the lore tag is also a good idea. However, I also think that it can be a normal non-lore tag as well because a 'feminine' body type is not defined only by breasts. Currently posts that have masculine breasted characters are being inconsistently tagged to the point they are legitimately a pain in the ass to find examples of. But here.
post #5445741post #4522806post #5430331post #3264286

lafcadio said:
Reason: post #3442454

The perfect image example, of course. You know how the first studied example of a species is called a type specimen? P.B. is like the type specimen of busty boys.

lafcadio said:
A busty boy is intended to be a masculine character with substantial breast growth, regardless of their visible features. The presence of breasts usually results in such a character being treated as a female or gynomorph according to TWYS, but a busty boy may also include male (lore), andromorph (lore), or trans man (lore) among their lore tags.
While real conditions such as gynecomastia exist, busty boys are usually more fantastical or extreme; they often have the size and form of medium breasts or larger, and they may wear a bra or be able to lactate.

I'm no doctor but I appreciate giving a medical take on this. Male lactation isn't so fantastical in real life (and quite a popular fantasy on e621). But while gynecomastia is a hormonal condition, it can be a symptom of Klinefelter syndrome, an intersex variation.

regsmutt said:
I think that the alias should be removed and the lore tag is also a good idea. However, I also think that it can be a normal non-lore tag as well because a 'feminine' body type is not defined only by breasts. Currently posts that have masculine breasted characters are being inconsistently tagged to the point they are legitimately a pain in the ass to find examples of. But here.
post #5445741post #4522806post #5430331post #3264286

I don't really like the idea of changing the definitions of the gender categories like this. the lore clarifiers were pretty much tailor-made to deal with cases like these, if we did want to do something other than those it'd be either use mismatched_sexual_dimorphism, or create a similar tag that's specifically for inconsistent human-based sexual dimorphism (like beard+boobs).

dba_afish said:
I don't really like the idea of changing the definitions of the gender categories like this. the lore clarifiers were pretty much tailor-made to deal with cases like these, if we did want to do something other than those it'd be either use mismatched_sexual_dimorphism, or create a similar tag that's specifically for inconsistent human-based sexual dimorphism (like beard+boobs).

It's always bothered me that we have no way to tag very masculine characters with breasts like those examples. I don't think anybody searching for female is looking for those. We can tag flat chested feminine characters as female/gynomorph/herm along with the flat_chested ancillary tag, but can't tag busty masculine characters as male/andromorph/maleherm? It seems like an outdated ruling at this point. A non gender tag for beard and boobs could work in a pinch but I genuinely think just nobody ever considered this possibility in 2007
Mismatched_sexual_dimorphism is currently for animal sexual dimorphism, like a female red cardinal or maned lioness

Not sure about the lore tag, but I agree with regsmutt that bustyboy would work as a twys counterpart to flat_chested, to be used on very masculine bodied male/andromorph/maleherm characters with breasts, just as flat_chested is used on feminine bodied female/gynomorph/herm characters without breasts

wandering_spaniel said:
It's always bothered me that we have no way to tag very masculine characters with breasts like those examples. I don't think anybody searching for female is looking for those. We can tag flat chested feminine characters as female/gynomorph/herm along with the flat_chested ancillary tag, but can't tag busty masculine characters as male/andromorph/maleherm? It seems like an outdated ruling at this point. A non gender tag for beard and boobs could work in a pinch but I genuinely think just nobody ever considered this possibility in 2007
Mismatched_sexual_dimorphism is currently for animal sexual dimorphism, like a female red cardinal or maned lioness

I'm not sure flat_chested is really a good example... a lot of the time this isn't just "entirely masculine build, +tits" like how flat_chested is "entirely feminine build, -tits" , it's pretty much just "dude's head + woman's body".

i.e. it's the inverse of post #5017882
it's not the inverse of post #1611594

dba_afish said:
I don't really like the idea of changing the definitions of the gender categories like this. the lore clarifiers were pretty much tailor-made to deal with cases like these, if we did want to do something other than those it'd be either use mismatched_sexual_dimorphism, or create a similar tag that's specifically for inconsistent human-based sexual dimorphism (like beard+boobs).

I'm looking at this from the perspective of people looking to search for or blacklist this theme. Right now? There's currently not a good way to do either. These characters get tagged moobs, breasts, gynomorph, andromorph, and male with total inconsistency. Every combination to try to find these has a large amount of false positives, and that's just looking for solo characters- you're completely shit outta luck for posts of them interacting with other characters. That's a problem. These also aren't edge-cases, grey-areas, or outliers, they're intentional character design and portrayal choices. If the current gender system can't accommodate that, it should change.

Is this something visible, or just something declared by the creator? This seems like it's trying to be another sex or gender tag with an unclear definition (an "andromorph with breasts"? a masculine-bodied gynomorph or herm? a feminine-bodied male-identifying character? post mtf transformation lore?).

post #3442454 post #5430331
These are quite disparate use-cases, and I can't imagine people who want the tag for the former would like the latter getting mixed up in it, and vice-versa. As a lore tag, it could only apply where the creator expressly indicates that's how the character is intended in the specific image, and not inferred by a visually feminine-sexed character with a masculine body.

I don't understand how this is different from gynomorph.

beholding said:
I don't understand how this is different from gynomorph.

Gynomorph is for feminine-bodied characters with penises

Edit: sorry yes I misspoke. Penis, breasts, no vagina. Generally they have otherwise feminine bodies

wandering_spaniel said:
Gynomorph is for feminine-bodied characters with penises

No, it's for characters that have a penis, breasts, and no vagina. Body type is irrelevant for gynomorph if breasts are visible: howto:tag genders

Genitals? ┬ non ─ [featureless_crotch] + (see unk)
          ├ mas ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [gynomorph]
          │                ├ n ─ [male]
          │                └ u ─ Body type? ┬ mas ─ [male]
          │                                 ├ fem ─ [gynomorph]
          │                                 └ unk ─ [male]
          ...

• Penis -> male, gynomorph, male + girly
• Breasts or feminine body?
• Breasts -> gynomorph
• Feminine -> male + girly
• Both -> gynomorph
• Neither -> male

If penis and no pussy, and if breasts, then gynomorph. Interestingly, the charts say penis, no vagina, indeterminate breasts, and a feminine body is also gynomorph, but I wager the vast majority of the time that's tagged male+femboy.

beholding said:
I don't understand how this is different from gynomorph.

busty_boy_(lore) is to gynomorph_(lore) as andromorph_(lore) is to female_(lore).
But also some uses of "busty boy" don't have penises to begin with, and some of them can't be tagged as (normal) gynomorph because no penis is evident.
This lore tag would add a commonality that otherwise doesn't exist between masculine characters with tits, which is good for blacklisting and searching.

wandering_spaniel said:
Interestingly, the charts say penis, no vagina, indeterminate breasts, and a feminine body is also gynomorph, but I wager the vast majority of the time that's tagged male+femboy.

I believe that this is mostly only considered for stuff like feral and young characters and/or species and forms where you wouldn't expect them to have breasts. in these situations, the tagging can get a little, uhh, vibes-based (in all honesty, I think the only content on here, outside of anthro/human/humanoid, that has very consistent rules for when a character is andromorph or gynomorph is MLP stuff, where it's more or less entirely based on the headshape, to the point that I think tagging feral MLP characters might be easier than every other non-feral on the site sometimes).

pink_(frowntown) has some art where this would apply too

watsit said:
No, it's for characters that have a penis, breasts, and no vagina. Body type is irrelevant for gynomorph if breasts are visible: howto:tag genders

Genitals? ┬ non ─ [featureless_crotch] + (see unk)
          ├ mas ─ Breasts? ┬ y ─ [gynomorph]
          │                ├ n ─ [male]
          │                └ u ─ Body type? ┬ mas ─ [male]
          │                                 ├ fem ─ [gynomorph]
          │                                 └ unk ─ [male]
          ...

Tall vertical chart

1. Are there any genitals present in the genital area?

• A) No
• Use featureless_crotch
• See 3.

• B) Yes
• See 2.

• C) Unknown/Hidden/Not sure
• See 3.

2. Which genitals?

• A) Penis
• See 3.

• B) Vagina
• See 3.

• C) Both (Penis and Vagina)
• See 3.

3. Any Breasts?

• A) Yes
• See 4.
• 3.A.i) Penis + Breasts = gynomorph
• 3.A.ii) Vagina + Breasts = Female
• 3.A.iii) Penis + Vagina + Breasts = Herm
• 3.A.iv) Unknown genitals + Breasts = Female

• B) No
• See 4.
• 3.B.i) Penis - Breasts = Male

• C) Unknown/Hidden/Not sure
• See 4.

...

If penis and no pussy, and if breasts, then gynomorph. Interestingly, the charts say penis, no vagina, indeterminate breasts, and a feminine body is also gynomorph, but I wager the vast majority of the time that's tagged male+femboy.

I'm gonna throw Spaniel a bone and say that the understanding/assumption of gynomorphs requiring femininity is due to the tags creation as a substitute for dickgirl, which wasn't that long ago and is used on many other sites still, so it's in every pervert's lexicon. That and also the etymology of gynē meaning woman.

another problem with bustyboy as a general tag is that its imprecision of definition would make it impossible to treat as a real gender category since its definition of "dude with tits" can mean any number of things. making it something more akin to a reverse femboy would cause other problems, it's gonna have all the same problems that that tag has but more pronounced, because a lot of people have a real attachment to the term "bustyboy" and they're going to treat its tag as a, like, "pseudo gender". people will see its existence as a reason to use it to replace gender tags on posts.

the better solution is, as I suggested above, use some other term that's entirely unrelated to "bustyboy" (or an entirely new term) to describe specifically characters who've got breasts and/or a "womanly" body but more masculine facial features and/or "manly" body hair.

Yeah it really would have to be a hairsplitter against gynomorph.

The bulk update request #11057 (forum #448734) has been approved by @spe.

wandering_spaniel said:
It's always bothered me that we have no way to tag very masculine characters with breasts like those examples. I don't think anybody searching for female is looking for those. We can tag flat chested feminine characters as female/gynomorph/herm along with the flat_chested ancillary tag, but can't tag busty masculine characters as male/andromorph/maleherm? It seems like an outdated ruling at this point. A non gender tag for beard and boobs could work in a pinch but I genuinely think just nobody ever considered this possibility in 2007

dba_afish said:
the better solution is, as I suggested above, use some other term that's entirely unrelated to "bustyboy" (or an entirely new term) to describe specifically characters who've got breasts and/or a "womanly" body but more masculine facial features and/or "manly" body hair.

I’m inclined to agree with these, and the gender tagging guide’s insistence upon breasts/no breasts for certain genders instead of regarding general femininity/masculinity has always felt too rigid to me. If I could have it my way, the existence of breasts or not shouldn’t be an exclusive deciding factor in gender tagging—female already gets an exception for this in the form of flat chested because even real-life females often don’t have any noticeable breast mass, so why don’t the other genders get treated that way?—but rather, gender tagging should take masculine/feminine traits as a whole into account, and while breasts are one of the most prominent feminine characteristics, they are not the only one. Face shape, hip/shoulder ratio, facial/body hair, etc. should all probably be a factor, at least, even though breasts will probably still be the most important factor in most cases.

I had the idea to use gynecomastia as a potential tag for this, without getting into the weeds of bustyboy lore-based tagging. It does feel odd to appropriate a medical term for what is essentially a niche porn concept at this point (breasts on a man), but it has a few advantages:

• The purpose is clear. Breasts on a man. Hard to get that confused.
• It’s a very little-known term, so unlikely to become widely misused like bustyboy was. Likely would be much easier to moderate for TWYS compliance.
• Has a basis in reality, and many bustyboy characters are probably actually meant to be gynecomastia cases.
• Besides that, I can’t think of anything better to call it.

The downside is maybe people removing the tag because their character is just supposed to have huge moobs but the artist drew them way too… supple. But, you know, that’s just a general TWYS issue.

Of course, I really don’t want to upset the entire gender tagging system and re-tag a million posts, so any changes at this point should only be for the sake of carving out small content niches that are not currently well-served by our existing tags. The current gender tagging guidelines were created many years ago for a much smaller site with much less content, and I don’t think strict adherence to it in all cases is the best solution for us anymore. There should be exceptions for niche content. In the case of what I propose here, it should only be for very obviously masculine characters with some kind of breast mass that goes beyond moobs. Because really, 99.9% of our gynomorph (and herm) content is sort of stereotypical so-called "futa" porn, and enjoyers of that tag want to see that, not big hairy burly men whose massive pecs were drawn a little too perky, which currently ends up lumped under gynomorph under strict adherence to our current guidelines, though I don’t think that benefits anybody. Not the searchers of that content, nor the blacklisters of that content, nor the people who want to find big burly males, nor the people who blacklist big burly males.

Anyway, regarding the OP, the bustyboy -> intersex alias has definitely caused many mistags, so it really had to be removed either way. A lore tag seems like the best solution for it, to be honest, as it has become a sort of entire subculture at this point, but rarely plays nice with TWYS, even if we did have a tag such as I propose above.

so, since we have bustyboy now, apparently, what's the inverse?

it'd be weird to only have a term for the "dudes with woman bodies" and not have a term for the "girls with man bodies".

Immediate results: the autocomplete suggestions when I start typing busty still shows the alias to intersex

dba_afish said:
so, since we have bustyboy now, apparently, what's the inverse?

it'd be weird to only have a term for the "dudes with woman bodies" and not have a term for the "girls with man bodies".

Andromorph applies for now
The old word was cuntboy or c-boy

nin10dope said:
Andromorph applies for now
The old word was cuntboy or c-boy

no, I mean, like, post #3690461.

spe said:
I’m inclined to agree with these, and the gender tagging guide’s insistence upon breasts/no breasts for certain genders instead of regarding general femininity/masculinity has always felt too rigid to me.

Body type feels too vague to me to define how to tag sexes. As it is, I've always felt that when genitals aren't visible, tagging a character's sex based on their body type is barely tolerated and only when their are super clear tells. And when genitals are visible, they take priority over everything for tagging sex. Having an ancillary tag like femboy or tomboy based on body type seems fairer as it's an extra tag, rather than being a deciding factor as to which sex to tag.

On top of that, we're talking about a lore tag, which is completely divorced from anything visual. In this thread alone, we've had calls to make both of these "busty boys":
post #3442454 post #5430331
where the first is just visually female with huge breasts, and the other looks like an overweight male with a chest that looks a bit more like breasts than typical moobs. But as a lore tag, it can only apply to posts that the creator explicitly states it applies to, regardless of how they look. Changing one alias for the other is still going to leave many mistagged posts, except now we won't be able to as easily figure out which are mistags (where it was tagged because masculine body+boobs, and not because the creator stated it).

dba_afish said:
no, I mean, like, post #3690461.

Ohhh
I mean that's just a man with female_(lore)
But otherwise I don't think there is a term

nin10dope said:
Ohhh
I mean that's just a man with female_(lore)
But otherwise I don't think there is a term

yeah, I'm just saying that it's weird that we've got this asymmetry with the lore tags now.

We'll have to wait until someone who's a fan of the potential niche has the knowledge

The bulk update request #11076 is active.

change category busty_boy_(lore) (594) -> lore
create alias bustyboy (0) -> busty_boy_(lore) (594)

Reason: i promised a part two

EDIT: The bulk update request #11076 (forum #449117) has been approved by @spe.

Seeing the use of 'busty boy' I've come around more to it as a lore tag since it's got a couple different uses that are not strictly 'twys man with boobs.' But, I still think that there SHOULD be a general tag for 'twys man with boobs.' It's a thing that people draw, want to see, want to be able to find, and want to be able to exclude/blacklist.

I kinda feel like the standard for whatever the 'man with boobs' tag ends up getting called should just more-or-less be the inverse of flat_chested. If the breasts were reduced/removed would it be tagged flat_chested+female/gynomorph? If no, it's 'man with boobs'+male/andromorph. I personally find gendered body tags to be difficult to define and contain a lot of grey area (there is SO much variation in both stylization and real-life body shapes), BUT if flat chested female/gynomorph characters can be tagged under twys I'm not sure why 'man with boobs' would destroy the whole tagging system.

watsit said:
Body type feels too vague to me to define how to tag sexes. As it is, I've always felt that when genitals aren't visible, tagging a character's sex based on their body type is barely tolerated and only when their are super clear tells. And when genitals are visible, they take priority over everything for tagging sex. Having an ancillary tag like femboy or tomboy based on body type seems fairer as it's an extra tag, rather than being a deciding factor as to which sex to tag.

Breasts are just part of body type, though. It’s a factor. I don’t see why that should be the only factor for tagging while entirely ignoring other anatomical factors like wide_hips.

On top of that, we're talking about a lore tag, which is completely divorced from anything visual. In this thread alone, we've had calls to make both of these "busty boys":
post #3442454 post #5430331
where the first is just visually female with huge breasts, and the other looks like an overweight male with a chest that looks a bit more like breasts than typical moobs. But as a lore tag, it can only apply to posts that the creator explicitly states it applies to, regardless of how they look. Changing one alias for the other is still going to leave many mistagged posts, except now we won't be able to as easily figure out which are mistags (where it was tagged because masculine body+boobs, and not because the creator stated it).

I’m not seeing how there would be any mistags. If an uploader/tagger is using a lore tag at all, it’s probably because they know the lore. Anyone using the tag before was probably trying to tag lore but getting redirected to intersex which is often wrong as many of these are just taggable as female. How is this tag any different from any of the other lore tags, exactly?

spe said:
Breasts are just part of body type, though. It’s a factor. I don’t see why that should be the only factor for tagging while entirely ignoring other anatomical factors like wide_hips.

Breasts are an anatomical feature, like a penis or vagina. I wouldn't compare them to wide_hips in relation to tagging sex. "Everyone" has hips, but not everyone has breasts, and a character having breasts or not is clearer than whether a character's hips are wide enough or not. But even there, a muscular male with large pecs vs a muscular gynomorph with breasts, or a flat-chested female vs an andromorph, aren't unusual tag wars since they're exclusive of each other. I don't like the idea of adding another exclusive tag that will be subject to similar disagreements/wars. As someone that tries to fix mistags as I see them, these kinds of things make me avoid touching tags like that even when I think they're being mistagged.

spe said:
I’m not seeing how there would be any mistags. If an uploader/tagger is using a lore tag at all, it’s probably because they know the lore. Anyone using the tag before was probably trying to tag lore but getting redirected to intersex which is often wrong as many of these are just taggable as female. How is this tag any different from any of the other lore tags, exactly?

As indicated by this thread, people want a busty_boy tag to apply to visually masculine-bodied characters with breasts. With bustyboy and busty_boy being what people want to tag for how these characters appear, they'll get replaced with the busty_boy_(lore) tag regardless of what the artist or character owner says they identify as. With the alias to intersex, we can look and see whether a character is intersex and fix the tag, but when aliased to busty_boy_(lore), we have to know what the artist may have said somewhere about the image or the characters in it before considering whether it's been mistagged.

The bulk update request #11076 (forum #449117) has been approved by @spe.

regsmutt said:
Seeing the use of 'busty boy' I've come around more to it as a lore tag since it's got a couple different uses that are not strictly 'twys man with boobs.' But, I still think that there SHOULD be a general tag for 'twys man with boobs.' It's a thing that people draw, want to see, want to be able to find, and want to be able to exclude/blacklist.

I kinda feel like the standard for whatever the 'man with boobs' tag ends up getting called should just more-or-less be the inverse of flat_chested. If the breasts were reduced/removed would it be tagged flat_chested+female/gynomorph? If no, it's 'man with boobs'+male/andromorph. I personally find gendered body tags to be difficult to define and contain a lot of grey area (there is SO much variation in both stylization and real-life body shapes), BUT if flat chested female/gynomorph characters can be tagged under twys I'm not sure why 'man with boobs' would destroy the whole tagging system.

where do we draw the lines? I feel like if this tag was gendered like that it'd be pretty, like, "dangerous", potentially catching some stuff that it shouldn't.

I mean, like, what about stuff like dwarves? we've not many depictions on here right now (as far as I'm aware, just the girl in post #5217090) but there are several universes where dwarven women are known to grow similarly exquisite facial hair to the men, with that on top of the species existing muscular, stocky build, I feel like some depictions of on-model dwarven women might edge their way into being classified as "busty boys". to me this feels not... right.

dba_afish said:
where do we draw the lines? I feel like if this tag was gendered like that it'd be pretty, like, "dangerous", potentially catching some stuff that it shouldn't.

"If this didn't have boobs it would absolutely not be tagged female/gynomorph."

I mean, like, what about dwarves? we've not many depictions on here right now (as far as I'm aware, just the girl in post #5217090) but there are several universes where dwarven women are known to grow similarly exquisite facial hair to the men, with that on top of the species existing muscular, stocky build, I feel like some depictions of on-model dwarven women might edge their way into being classified as "busty boys". to me this feels not... right.

Idk. I was under the impression gender tags are already supposed to ignore certain things about species. If a species' sexual dimorphism contradicts twys that's what lore tags are for. I don't really see how this is more of a problem than on-model female charr.

regsmutt said:
Idk. I was under the impression gender tags are already supposed to ignore certain things about species. If a species' sexual dimorphism contradicts twys that's what lore tags are for. I don't really see how this is more of a problem than on-model female charr.

well, this isn't a gender tag, though. all of the gender tags are defined in relation to bodytype and genitals (boy/girl with penis/vagina/both) bustyboy is defined entirely tangentially to that and its definition cuts through several existing gender tags, it's fundamentally incompatible with the existing gender categories.

Just for clarity, does this tag apply to any character that essentially has the "Man with Boobs" physique or exclusively specific characters that are actually identified as bustyboys by their creator/owner?

Also would this tag apply onto crossgendered versions of characters that identify as bustyboys?

ryu_deacon said:
Just for clarity, does this tag apply to any character that essentially has the "Man with Boobs" physique or exclusively specific characters that are actually identified as bustyboys by their creator/owner?

Also would this tag apply onto crossgendered versions of characters that identify as bustyboys?

The lore version of this tag (what the current BUR is for) is for just characters that the creator/owner call bustyboys. This goes beyond 'man with boobs' and includes 'male character with female/gynomorph body.' There isn't currently a tag for 'man with boobs', but it probably shouldn't get named 'bustyboy' because that's a term with less specific use.

regsmutt said:
The lore version of this tag (what the current BUR is for) is for just characters that the creator/owner call bustyboys. This goes beyond 'man with boobs' and includes 'male character with female/gynomorph body.' There isn't currently a tag for 'man with boobs', but it probably shouldn't get named 'bustyboy' because that's a term with less specific use.

the wiki should probably be updated then as it refers to the appearance and not the identification. And did notice at least two instances of pokemon for example that are not a specific custom personal character being tagged in this..

The bulk update request #11098 is pending approval.

create alias tittyboy (0) -> busty_boy_(lore) (594)
create alias busty_boi (0) -> busty_boy_(lore) (594)

Reason: common synonyms

ryu_deacon said:
The bulk update request #11098 is pending approval.

create alias tittyboy (0) -> busty_boy_(lore) (594)
create alias busty_boi (0) -> busty_boy_(lore) (594)

Reason: common synonyms

fallowup

alias male_with_breasts -> busty_boy_(lore)

How common are they if they have no uses?

ryu_deacon said:
Reason: common synonyms

fallowup

alias male_with_breasts -> busty_boy_(lore)

Lore tags are meant for what the creator intends for the depiction of the character, it's not based on visual details. A character with breasts that identifies as or otherwise looks like a male should not be tagged busty_boy_(lore) if the artist doesn't say the character is a busty boy in the image.

nin10dope said:
How common are they if they have no uses?

many of the owners of characters that actually identify as busty boys ive seen or artists that specialize in and refer to specific characters as busty boys I found also make use of some form of ether one of these two terms in tagging or in place of the term busty boy entirely..

ryu_deacon said:
many of the owners of characters that actually identify as busty boys ive seen or artists that specialize in and refer to specific characters as busty boys I found also make use of some form of ether one of these two terms in tagging or in place of the term busty boy entirely..

Yes, but the question is if people tagging or who would tag male_with_breasts (and the other tags) are using it on specific characters that the creator identifies as busty boys, and aren't using it as another visual-based sex tag.

it is a nice new addition, thank you