Sorry, pretty new here. A solo male should receive the 'gay' tag?

Nope, because he's solo

Magmagan said:
Sorry, pretty new here. A solo male should receive the 'gay' tag?

No, because what if it's a straight girl looking up porn? She may not be interested in seeing gay sex, being straight, but she wants to look up male characters. Hope I made sense there, I can't explain for shit sometimes.

xTheWolf94x said:
No, because what if it's a straight girl looking up porn? She may not be interested in seeing gay sex, being straight, but she wants to look up male characters. Hope I made sense there, I can't explain for shit sometimes.

Not really the actual reason, but a solid argument supporting it.

And so that the real reason is also said in this thread:

Gay-Wiki says:
The term "gay" is slang for homosexual, sexual behaviour or attraction between two or more individuals of the same gender.

For clarity's sake on e621, the tag "gay" is only to be applied to images or animations which specifically depict male homosexuality; images depicting female homosexuality should be tagged with "lesbian".

If you are ever unsure about how a specific tag is used, simply click on the question mark to the left of the tag, that will bring you to the e621-wiki page of the specific tag and you can read up on the explanation there.

AFAIK solo male should not get gay tag unless there is cum on/in him and it's not result of masturbation or autofellatio.

*high fives* We can always use more diligent taggers. A few more tags you might find useful:

• if you were wondering about stereotypically "gay" traits like if the solo male was being effeminate, then the image might also need the girly tag.

• if they're wearing feminine clothes, ruffles, etc then they might qualify for the crossdressing tag.

• If you run into a solo male with a lot of gay pride related items and imagery, then the super_gay tag might also be helpful.

• Or just rainbow if there's just rainbow colored clothing or jewelry.

Or course those can apply regardless of how many males are in the image. Just for clarity, the gay tag is only for male on male's having sex or intimate relations (like kissing or nude cuddling, etc) and not really for looking "gay" or acting "gay". That's why these more specific tags sometimes come in handy. And welcome to the site! Feel free to ask questions if you need to. Sometimes it's a little hard to find stuff around here.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
AFAIK solo male should not get gay tag unless there is cum on/in him and it's not result of masturbation or autofellatio.

Is that still the active rule?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
AFAIK solo male should not get gay tag unless there is cum on/in him and it's not result of masturbation or autofellatio.

How is it gay if its his own cum? Theres no way to tell the difference....that isnt gay, a solo male shouldnt be tagged as gay from that

Conker said:
How is it gay if its his own cum? Theres no way to tell the difference....that isnt gay, a solo male shouldnt be tagged as gay from that

Its quite easy to tell when its his own cum most of the time, but there's always gray areas.

Shouldn't it be gay if the solo male character is using a dildo or something to simulate the feeling of being penetrated anally?

Moon_Moon said:
Shouldn't it be gay if the solo male character is using a dildo or something to simulate the feeling of being penetrated anally?

No, gay is for sex of two or more males. Dildo is not a male. Besides if male like being anally penetrated he can still be completely straight. See pegging.

Moon_Moon said:
Its quite easy to tell when its his own cum most of the time, but there's always gray areas.

Shouldn't it be gay if the solo male character is using a dildo or something to simulate the feeling of being penetrated anally?

And what if it's cum from a herm, or a dickgirl.
We don't tag herm+male as gay.

current policy is something like this
post #377200
can be safely tagged as gay. No reason to assume anything other than another dude put that cum there.

ippiki_ookami said:
current policy is something like this
post #377200
can be safely tagged as gay. No reason to assume anything other than another dude put that cum there.

What if it was a herm or dickgirl that put it there?

TheHuskyK9 said:
What if it was a herm or dickgirl that put it there?

we assume it's male. makes things simpler

ippiki_ookami said:
we assume it's male. makes things simpler

Not tagging it gay seems a lot simpler.

TheHuskyK9 said:
What if it was a herm or dickgirl that put it there?

We're already assuming that disembodied_penis is a male. (There's implication) This is rather consistent with it.

Halite said:
Not tagging it gay seems a lot simpler.

This.

I feel I should point out that this thread is 6 months old, and so the newer thread wasn't actually a duplicate according to forum rules.

I'm still against tagging it as gay

personally I am 50-50 on it. I lean more towards it being gay as people who blacklist gay are likely to not want to see an (assumed) penis having left cum in a male's butt

I don't really care how it's tagged so long as we're consistent. I do think people searching gay want to see solo male cumbutts. Also RD's point.

I'm sure we also came to the decision that solo male with a dildo doesn't count as gay, so why is cum any different? Both people with cum in their ass or a dildo in their ass obviously are gay and love cocks.

Saffron said:
I'm sure we also came to the decision that solo male with a dildo doesn't count as gay, so why is cum any different? Both people with cum in their ass or a dildo in their ass obviously are gay and love cocks.

Precedence is not always right.

Saffron said:
I'm sure we also came to the decision that solo male with a dildo doesn't count as gay, so why is cum any different? Both people with cum in their ass or a dildo in their ass obviously are gay and love cocks.

No.

Halite said:
No.

Okay ;'((((((((((

I'm not sure how I feel about cum/dildos in butts, but solo males not engaging in either of those activities definitely shouldn't be tagged gay.

Personally, I think that dildos up the butt shouldn't be tagged as gay, but cum should.

Prostate stimulation is a legit thing. Not all men who do it are gay. But having cum in your ass strongly implies you've just been boned by another dude.

SirAntagonist said:
Personally, I think that dildos up the butt shouldn't be tagged as gay, but cum should.

Prostate stimulation is a legit thing. Not all men who do it are gay. But having cum in your ass strongly implies you've just been boned by another dude.

This, exactly, for me.

SirAntagonist said:
Personally, I think that dildos up the butt shouldn't be tagged as gay, but cum should.

Unless there is undoubted proof that something like a cumtubed strapon or like, a beer bong like set up, or magic of some sort, I think the cum in ass should imply gay.

SirAntagonist said:
Prostate stimulation is a legit thing. Not all men who do it are gay.

Not all, just most...and all it takes is most.

Moon_Moon said:
Unless there is undoubted proof that something like a cumtubed strapon or like, a beer bong like set up, or magic of some sort, I think the cum in ass should imply gay.

Not all, just most...and all it takes is most.

Eh, I disagree on the most factor there... though within the furry fandom you might be right, and I guess that's the factor we should take into account there? There's a rather larger number of gay men in the furry subculture than I'd have ever thought there would be before I'd been a part of it for a few years.

That's because us gay guys tend to be a lot more honest with ourselves sexually - that's why (from what I've seen) gay guys tend to be more kinky in general.

Annoyingly enough tagging solo male images with cum that isn't the result of masturbation as gay is inconsistent. You can't tag a solo female image with cum as straight because that automatically adds the "male" tag for obvious reasons, even if there isn't a male in the picture. Just thought I would bring that up.

Perhaps an implication needs to be nuked

cum > male implication should be nuked, is that what you're saying? Hmm, yeah, that is a bit of a tricky one. I mean, we're still obvious assuming someone put the cum there, and we're automatically assuming it was amle that did it, not a dickgirl or herm, unless evidence to the contrary is presented within the image. Yet, at the same time, no male is actually visible in the image. Tricky, though obvious from a very cut-and-dry perspective.

Ceti, I'd like to note that tagging solo males with cum inside of them as gay isn't inconsistant, as we consistantly tag that way.

123easy said:
cum > male implication should be nuked, is that what you're saying?

I think RD is considering nuking the straight->male and straight->female implications.

RedOctober said:
I think RD is considering nuking the straight->male and straight->female implications.

It should because tentacles can cum but are not tagged male

Rainbow_Dash said:
It should because tentacles can cum but are not tagged male

...What? Straight is defined as male and female sexual interaction, ie; to cater to both those interested in seeing guys fucking girls and girls fucking guys, that's the tag to search. If you want guy on guy style stuff, gay. Girl on girl, lesbian. If a tentacle cummed inside a female, then it's not straight (unless the tentacle came from a male creature that we can determine in some other way). If the argument is that a female with cum inside her is assumed to have been cummed inside by a male provided no other gender is visible, so straight cannot apply properly since there is no male according to the current application- gay is technically male on male, but because of how tags work only one male tag is applied, so it gets around that. Same with lesbian and female. yeah people who want to see cum in females will likely be straight, but cum_inside covers that aspect. straight is specifically for direct male and female interaction.

123easy said:
Eh, I disagree on the most factor there... though within the furry fandom you might be right, and I guess that's the factor we should take into account there? There's a rather larger number of gay men in the furry subculture than I'd have ever thought there would be before I'd been a part of it for a few years.

To complicate things there are those who do things with males, females, herms, etc, do not consider themselves gays., because they do not gender into equation of relations, or life at all. Oh, and those who bone guys in ass often stillbconsider themselves straight , i.e. prison inmates

Swiftkill said:
To complicate things there are those who do things with males, females, herms, etc, do not consider themselves gays., because they do not gender into equation of relations, or life at all. Oh, and those who bone guys in ass often stillbconsider themselves straight , i.e. prison inmates

But someone who hears of it associates the act with gay behaviour in most cases. We're going for the 90% accuracy function here, not 100% accuracy which has far too many exceptions.

The "gay" tag here isn't not labeling anyone as homosexual.
All it is for is to label male on male activity.
Attempting to label sexuality, particularly based purely on an image, is completely futile, and impossible.
After all, an image of a male raping a female might be contain a lesbian being raped, but we'd have no way of knowing that, and labeling it as such would be silly.
A male and female having sex might both be bisexual, but again, there's no way to know that.
It's all about what's visible in the image not about the sexuality of the characters, a mistake that is sadly made too frequently.

Halite said:
The "gay" tag here isn't not labeling anyone as homosexual.
All it is for is to label male on male activity.
Attempting to label sexuality, particularly based purely on an image, is completely futile, and impossible.
After all, an image of a male raping a female might be contain a lesbian being raped, but we'd have no way of knowing that, and labeling it as such would be silly.
A male and female having sex might both be bisexual, but again, there's no way to know that.
It's all about what's visible in the image not about the sexuality of the characters, a mistake that is sadly made too frequently.

True,i wasnt arguying with it, though such tag is confusing for so e people - IN common knowlege gay is lifestyle, homosexual is activity. But my point was that adjusting tagging rules to people 's priorities in search would be siziph's job - endless and fruitless.what they expect to see using those tags may wary so much, so that any ruling may theoretically give wrong result. Instead, just tag per case basis, on TWYS policy. Users will learn on try and fail basis what tags to use. If they'll not, then they're to dumb to have porn

123easy said:
...What? Straight is defined as male and female sexual interaction, ie; to cater to both those interested in seeing guys fucking girls and girls fucking guys, that's the tag to search. If you want guy on guy style stuff, gay. Girl on girl, lesbian. If a tentacle cummed inside a female, then it's not straight (unless the tentacle came from a male creature that we can determine in some other way). If the argument is that a female with cum inside her is assumed to have been cummed inside by a male provided no other gender is visible, so straight cannot apply properly since there is no male according to the current application- gay is technically male on male, but because of how tags work only one male tag is applied, so it gets around that. Same with lesbian and female. yeah people who want to see cum in females will likely be straight, but cum_inside covers that aspect. straight is specifically for direct male and female interaction.

I'm saying yes, the implication should be nuked as tentacles are not labeled as gay

Rainbow_Dash said:
I'm saying yes, the implication should be nuked as tentacles are not labeled as gay

Straight shouldn't be on tentacle + female images. That's something else entirely. The implication is fine. people misusing the tag for a situation it does not cover is the fault here.

theres no reason to remove the straight -> male/female implications

Who knew a question on whether solo male art was gay would turn out to be so philosophical. :)

Jack_Nova said:
Who knew a question on whether solo male art was gay would turn out to be so philosophical. :)

It's actually IS a philosophical question. Because it's question about classification of entities, that's what philosophy does XD

This discussion deserves at least a Venn diagram.

Jack_Nova said:
This discussion deserves at least a Venn diagram.

Gay on the left, not gay on the right, and in the middle where they mingle, labelled gay because cum in its ass.

Just replace the existing labels with the ones listed in the conversation above: http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/2-12-11/42.jpg

Jack_Nova said:
Just replace the existing labels with the ones listed in the conversation above: http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/2-12-11/42.jpg

Wasn't George Carlin a smoker?

Halite said:
Wasn't George Carlin a smoker?

Before or after he was cremated?

Jack_Nova said:
Before or after he was cremated?

Mostly, before.

Halite said:
Mostly, before.

As a younger man I know he smoked, but I thought he quit towards the latter half of his career, when it really took off?

123easy said:
As a younger man I know he smoked, but I thought he quit towards the latter half of his career, when it really took off?

Beats me, but I'd guess it contributed to his eventual death of heart attack.

Bumping thread because I think that something should be done with whole cum_in_ass / tentacle tagging.
IMO solo male with cum in ass should not be tagged gay.

Currently, if I remember correctly there are three rules.
I Picture with solo male with cum in his ass (Or some other place that implies that it's not his.) should be tagged gay
II Picture with solo male without any cum that isn't his shouldn't be tagged gay.
III Tentacles are not considered characters so they don't count to gender/quantity tagging. Solo male fucked by tentacles don't get neither gay nor duo/group tags.

There are at least two inconsistencies in this.

1. solo male cum_in_ass gets gay tag solo female cum_in_ass does not get straight tag.

2. Tentacle on solo male is not gay because rule III
Solo male with cum in his ass is gay because of rule I
Tentacle on solo male cumming in his ass is... is... *BRAIN EXPLODES*

So these are two main reasons why I think that solo male with cum in his ass shouldn't be tagged gay.

I know that this is useful for some people who want to see solo males without cum in ass but I think that this search/blacklist result can be accomplished with tags such as cum_in_ass, or after_sex

I think the straight tag is like the day/night tags (i.e night is the main used tag), if you don't want to see gay stuff you just type "-gay" it is why more important to tag gay/lesbian when you see it.

As for the cum_in_ass : it is true tentacle on solo whith cum_in_ass shouldn't be tagged as gay, but every other male w/ cum_in_as should as it is the result of a gay sexual activity.

I really do not see why a male with a load of cum leaking from his ass shouldn't be tagged with gay. You can't put it there yourself, it has to have come from another male. Same goes for the back and butt-cheeks.

I agree with you that there's a weird inconsistency going on with females not getting tagged with straight when they have a bunch of cum on/in them, but how in the name of Batman is that a sound argument against solo males being legitimately tagged with gay? You've got it turned around. It should only be an argument FOR adding straight tags to cum-filled females.

Jugofthat
You can't put it there yourself

Now you're NOT thinking with portals.

Straight tag implies male. Adding straight tag to solo female pictures will lead to a disaster.

Removing implication straight->male is IMO bad. I very often rely on this implication when tagging.

Also what about second example?

Yyunko said:
As for the cum_in_ass : it is true tentacle on solo whith cum_in_ass shouldn't be tagged as gay, but every other male w/ cum_in_as should as it is the result of a gay sexual activity.

So picture like post #527461 with tentacles edited out suddenly becomes gay? It doesn't sound good to me.

Hmmm, true, that implication's going to cause problems. The only reason it's not a problem with a gay tag on solo males is because there already is a male involved, so there the active implication basically does nothing. Good point, don't know if we can do something about that.

As for the tentacles, they indeed don't count as characters, but you only know they're tentacles when you actually see them. If there's nothing to see but there has clearly been something going on (again, the solo male with cum up his ass), I do believe we're allowed to assume there has been a character involved instead of a non-sentient.

And literally taking that picture but removing the tentacles would only result in... a very weird picture. =/

However, even though it would look like the cum is basically shooting out his arse at mach 3, it'd still be semen coming from a male's rectum. I would believe that to be heavily implied gayness, yes.

No that's not what I was saying (and also I appologize for it if I was unclear) What I meant is that tentacles /w cum shouln't tagged as gay, but solo picture solo /w cum and whithout tentacles should be tagged as gay. basicaly I agree with you.

Then again I think the straight tag on solo pics shouln't be enforces as hardly as the gay tag because if you cant straight picture with solo males you'll just have to type in "solo male -gay"

EDIT: I once again read too fast, so yes, if you see a male with cum in his ass, if he is alone with no tentacles, yes it is gay because cum doesn't magically appear in one ass.

Yeah, I was responding to Granberia in my first message, sorry if that confused you. Guess I should've used a quote.

Also, Granberia, please tell me we can at least ignore the existence of portals in judging the average picture that doesn't involve them. For that matter: cum lube. ;)

Idk. When cum, lube and pussy juice are often drawn indistinguishable from each other, I find it hard to say that a solo picture of anybody should be tagged with a sexual-relationship-tag like "gay" or "straight" since both of those require two participants and this image only shows one. Was there only ever one participant and this artist draws lube/cum-lube/pussy_juice/martian-slime in a way that looks just like regular cum? There's no way to know. They have a clearish to whitish goop in their ass/pussy and/or butt fur. That's all we know.

But even if we make the leap to say "someone else must have put it there" we still have no evidence for gendering the whom, unless we assume that the only option is a male with regular cum. Because it could have been copious amounts of lube from a dildo that was discarded out of frame after masturbation reached orgasm, or copious lube from a strapon/fisting/fingering session by any gender, or after sex with a herm or dickgirl, tentacles which have since retreated out of the picture now that the fun's over, OR after sex with a male.

And when pussies self-lubricate, a pussy full of fluid can simply mean "this woman is horny and this artist sucks at drawing female fluids differently than regular cum". They are a little different than a regular solo image, though. Maybe we need an "after_gay_sex" tag and a "after_straight_sex" tag to handle these because even if we assume male cum, at best it is still just an after_sex situation if all that's left of the possibly-another-person is their lube/cum remnants. I don't think it should use the same tags as regular sex does, because sex isn't even being pictured. And so that people searching "gay" and "straight" don't have random solo pictures with no action happening in them muddying up their search results. When I'm searching "straight" I'm looking for evidence that both a male and a female are in the same picture, not a single person covering in unknown fluids who looks sated and very very alone.

Tentacles/vines/etc are the bane of taggers everywhere and probably deserve their own thread so I'm not going to even discuss those here unless absolutely necessary.

Wh- why do you always have to make so much sense? :O

I mean, when you put it like that... Though personally, I happen to like searching for "gay" and having these random solo pics pop up as they're still pretty relevant to my interests at that moment, and if you wish to avoid them that's actually rather easy (-solo).

But I suppose those fluids technically could've been dumped in there by anything with a pen0r indeed, not necessarily a male. So yes, calling it gay does make you turn to using assumptions, which I know should be avoided whenever possible, though I've always had the impression this case was an exception.

And particularly solo female/pussy pics can indeed be very ambiguous as to what's actually leaking out. That actually punches a few holes in the logic we're applying to males.

Ehhh, I've got nothing. As long as I'm still able to tag leaking cum as leaking cum when it's drawn clearly enough, perhaps it's not really that important to me whether I can also tag it as gay or straight or what have you.

furrypickle said:
Idk. When cum, lube and pussy juice are often drawn indistinguishable from each other, I find it hard to say that a solo picture of anybody should be tagged with a sexual-relationship-tag like "gay" or "straight" since both of those require two participants and this image only shows one. Was there only ever one participant and this artist draws lube/cum-lube/pussy_juice/martian-slime in a way that looks just like regular cum? There's no way to know. They have a clearish to whitish goop in their ass/pussy and/or butt fur. That's all we know.

But even if we make the leap to say "someone else must have put it there" we still have no evidence for gendering the whom, unless we assume that the only option is a male with regular cum. Because it could have been copious amounts of lube from a dildo that was discarded out of frame after masturbation reached orgasm, or copious lube from a strapon/fisting/fingering session by any gender, or after sex with a herm or dickgirl, tentacles which have since retreated out of the picture now that the fun's over, OR after sex with a male.

And when pussies self-lubricate, a pussy full of fluid can simply mean "this woman is horny and this artist sucks at drawing female fluids differently than regular cum". They are a little different than a regular solo image, though. Maybe we need an "after_gay_sex" tag and a "after_straight_sex" tag to handle these because even if we assume male cum, at best it is still just an after_sex situation if all that's left of the possibly-another-person is their lube/cum remnants. I don't think it should use the same tags as regular sex does, because sex isn't even being pictured. And so that people searching "gay" and "straight" don't have random solo pictures with no action happening in them muddying up their search results. When I'm searching "straight" I'm looking for evidence that both a male and a female are in the same picture, not a single person covering in unknown fluids who looks sated and very very alone.

Tentacles/vines/etc are the bane of taggers everywhere and probably deserve their own thread so I'm not going to even discuss those here unless absolutely necessary.

Darn it Pickle, you and your paragraphs :p

I've always wondered why pegging and auto-fellatio weren't considered gay by those that do it.

Ko-san said:
I've always wondered why pegging and auto-fellatio weren't considered gay by those that do it.

Gay requires another male, neither pegging nor auto-fellatio require another male.

If we expand gay to mean "anything involving sexual or romantic actions with a male and something dick-shaped" we'd have to tag dickgirls and herms as gay.

Ko-san said:
I've always wondered why pegging and auto-fellatio weren't considered gay by those that do it.

Pegging is sex with a woman, that is the literal opposite of gay.

Halite said:
Pegging is sex with a woman, that is the literal opposite of gay.

No, it's asking a woman to get a dildo and shove it in your ass. You aren't having sexual intercourse with the woman.

NotMeNotYou said:
Gay requires another male, neither pegging nor auto-fellatio require another male.

If we expand gay to mean "anything involving sexual or romantic actions with a male and something dick-shaped" we'd have to tag dickgirls and herms as gay.

I wasn't implying that tags should change, I was merely talking about the act itself.

Ko-san said:
No, it's asking a woman to get a dildo and shove it in your ass. You aren't having sexual intercourse with the woman.

I wasn't implying that tags should change, I was merely talking about the act itself.

So, 2 lesbians using a strap-on to have sex aren't having sex?
Try again.

Halite said:
So, 2 lesbians using a strap-on to have sex aren't having sex?
Try again.

I don't really consider that sex, no. Neither do I consider mutual masturbation sex.

Ko-san said:
I don't really consider that sex, no. Neither do I consider mutual masturbation sex.

Then anal intercourse utilizing a penis isn't sex either because it isn't genital intercourse.

69 wouldn't count as sex either since you don't mash genitals into each other.

I get from where you're coming from but the biggest part of society counts all activities leading to sexual gratification of two or more partners as sex, as long as the genitals follow their function (penis things inserted, vagina things filled, prostates pounded).

NotMeNotYou said:
Then anal intercourse utilizing a penis isn't sex either because it isn't genital intercourse.

69 wouldn't count as sex either since you don't mash genitals into each other.

I get from where you're coming from but the biggest part of society counts all activities leading to sexual gratification of two or more partners as sex, as long as the genitals follow their function (penis things inserted, vagina things filled, prostates pounded).

Apparently Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.
:3

NotMeNotYou said:
Then anal intercourse utilizing a penis isn't sex either because it isn't genital intercourse.

69 wouldn't count as sex either since you don't mash genitals into each other.

I get from where you're coming from but the biggest part of society counts all activities leading to sexual gratification of two or more partners as sex, as long as the genitals follow their function (penis things inserted, vagina things filled, prostates pounded).

If you got a handjob from your partner before marriage, would you consider that premarital sex? If you used a dildo/onahole while your partner kissed you, would you consider that sex? I wouldn't.

Scientifically, sex is short for sexual intercourse which includes penetration through vaginal, anal or oral stimulation with the partner's genitalia. Other forms of sexual actvity may sometimes be called "outercourse" or foreplay but are not considered "real sex".