Alright, I'm looking at these tags wondering about possible aliases. I've said this before but BDSM isn't exactly my area of expertise and I may be missing some nuance of what a couple of these mean. Firstly...

Alias: dom -> domination
Alias: domme -> domination or possibly female_domination
Alias: dommed -> domination

This much, I think, is obvious.

What I'm not sure about is the functional difference between dominatrix and female_domination. It seems like they mean basically the same thing; dominatrix working as the noun (the person) and female_domination working as the act itself.

For tagging purposes though, it doesn't seem like you would have one without the other (except possibly a solo dominatrix). Is there any reason that one can't be aliased to the other? Or perhaps a better question, is there a proper gender-neutral tag already that can be applied to a solo dom-dressed character?

parasprite said:
Alias: dom -> domination

Def' a no on that.
There's a ton of misstags with that.
Mainly with users tagging a solo dominant character as dom. I.e a top character like a dominatrix or a buff guy might be tagged with that. Like so - post #537405 post #496429

parasprite said:
What I'm not sure about is the functional difference between dominatrix and female_domination. It seems like they mean basically the same thing; dominatrix working as the noun (the person) and female_domination working as the act itself.

For tagging purposes though, it doesn't seem like you would have one without the other (except possibly a solo dominatrix). Is there any reason that one can't be aliased to the other?

A no on that as well.
Just one of the reasons.
From that easy search, it's quite obvious you can have one without the other.

I guess the other stuff sounds alright.

Peekaboo said:
Def' a no on that.
There's a ton of misstags with that.
Mainly with users tagging a solo dominant character as dom. I.e a top character like a dominatrix or a buff guy might be tagged with that. Like so - post #537405 post #496429
A no on that as well.
Just one of the reasons.
From that easy search, it's quite obvious you can have one without the other.

I guess the other stuff sounds alright.

Wow that's some bad misstagging. Alright, I guess I'm going to have to look into this a bit more before I touch anything then.

Thanks Peek.