Greetings all. There has been something that has been bothering me and I'd like to rectify it if possible, but I'd like to know if the e621 higher ups would approve before I do anything.

This is in regards to "Naga" characters (upper body is humanoid, lower body is snake). There is a rather defined line between ones where the sex organs are in a more traditional "snake" location (down the snake body closer to the tail)

post #926568

post #491982

and others where the organs are at the humanoid hip.

post #878369

post #923091

I wish to propose a tag definition to separate these two types of anatomy.

One I have come up with is "Sleepingbag_anatomy", which is merely a reference to the fact that the naga character's organs are at the human hip and that the rest of the body is "as if the person is wearing a sleeping bag on their legs".

This isn't exclusive to nagas as it's also done to merfolk and and occasional taur.

I personally would be willing to go through ALL naga and merfolk images to apply the tag where it would apply, to further ease the burden of mods/admins and to prove that I want to be a contributing member of this community beyond just image content and occasional tag correcting.

The discussion in forum #203412 might be relevant.

Maxpizzle said:
The discussion in forum #203412 might be relevant.

doesn't necessarily apply because we arnt actually talking about genitalia on a tail anatomically speaking, because what we tend to call the tail on serpentine legless species is still part of its torso, only last 5 inches or so after the genitalia is the tail when the genitalia is positioned as in feral snake.

Might add a similar proposal(OP) would also be needed for many arthropod who ether have their genitalia on the humanoid crotch or in the abdomen as their feral counterparts do.

Ruku said:
doesn't necessarily apply because we arnt actually talking about genitalia on a tail anatomically speaking, because what we tend to call the tail on serpentine legless species is still part of its torso, only last 5 inches or so after the genitalia is the tail when the genitalia is positioned as in feral snake.

Might add a similar proposal(OP) would also be needed for many arthropod who ether have their genitalia on the humanoid crotch or in the abdomen as their feral counterparts do.

Indeed, this stems from an odd placement of the anatomy in the first place. Arthropods are a little harder to classify, but do fall into the zone of having parts where it would be in the "face" of the animal torso.

The entire situation of this particular tag comes from the fact that taurs often remember that the lower half is indeed a body and thus the anatomy is applied accordingly, but when it comes to snakes, far too many folks think it is "just a tail", failing to know that a snake has very little tail length at the end of it's incredibly long body. Thus, they treat the entire snake body "as if it's a humanoid character with their legs in a sleeping bag".

But yes, a similar proposal should be done for arthropods.

As for characters who have multiple organ placement, such as this -

post #973387

The tag would still apply but be in tandem with the "multiple organ" associated tags.

If the tag were added and used, then would the "anatomically_correct" tag be applied when the genitals are at the hip area, or towards the tail, as nagas are part human, part snake (in a way). What I mean is would the nagas take the placement of genitalia from the human part, or the snake part, as nagas are fictional creatures.

If there is an official placement of genitalia on nagas/merpeople then forgive me for not knowing.

fiansagif said:
If the tag were added and used, then would the "anatomically_correct" tag be applied when the genitals are at the hip area, or towards the tail, as nagas are part human, part snake (in a way). What I mean is would the nagas take the placement of genitalia from the human part, or the snake part, as nagas are fictional creatures.

If there is an official placement of genitalia on nagas/merpeople then forgive me for not knowing.

Nagas and merpeople are defined as "half person, half snake/fish". A centaur is an apt comparison; you nearly never see a penis at the "human" hip area because that area is reorganized into the horse neck and chest. it's basically taking the humanoid torso off of a normal body at the hips and then removign the head of the animal they become a "taur" of.

A naga/lamia would follow the same logic; take snake, remove head. take humanoid, remove at hips, place hips on snake neck.

Anatomically_correct would be more inclined to show up when the anatomy matches a logical idea of where the organs would be IE: A horse taur having bits where a horse would and nothing where the "human" torso ends. Same for snakes and all other taurs (of which I'd personally take up the long task going through as many as possible to apply the tag properly)

To include the penis/vagina/butt of the humanoid part, it would require cutting the humanoid off UNDER the hips so in order to retain the butt and the groin and would indeed have the "sleepingbag" issue once more.

Daneasaur said:
Nagas and merpeople are defined as "half person, half snake/fish". A centaur is an apt comparison; you nearly never see a penis at the "human" hip area because that area is reorganized into the horse neck and chest. it's basically taking the humanoid torso off of a normal body at the hips and then removign the head of the animal they become a "taur" of.

A naga/lamia would follow the same logic; take snake, remove head. take humanoid, remove at hips, place hips on snake neck.

Anatomically_correct would be more inclined to show up when the anatomy matches a logical idea of where the organs would be IE: A horse taur having bits where a horse would and nothing where the "human" torso ends. Same for snakes and all other taurs (of which I'd personally take up the long task going through as many as possible to apply the tag properly)

To include the penis/vagina/butt of the humanoid part, it would require cutting the humanoid off UNDER the hips so in order to retain the butt and the groin and would indeed have the "sleepingbag" issue once more.

A merperson would tehcnically be more half human/half dolphin due to the fin placement and the swimming mammal biology but no one draws those.

First off considering the recent argument i had over the true definition of what is anatomically correct, it has been concluded that the tag is completely misleading, it has nothing to do with being anatomically correct in regards to placement among other things but rather simply that the genitalia and body are the same species. both placement types would be valid under what is considered correct under the existing tag. Also concerning lamias, they do in most cases include human hips same with traditional mermaids, its only taurs and most nagas that do not have human hips.

Just noting nagas are pure snakes with arms and a anthropomorphic chest, lamias are fully human above the crotch and snake bellow where the crotch would be.

Ruku said:
First off considering the recent argument i had over the true definition of what is anatomically correct, it has been concluded that the tag is completely misleading, it has nothing to do with being anatomically correct in regards to placement among other things but rather simply that the genitalia and body are the same species. both placement types would be valid under what is considered correct under the existing tag. Also concerning lamias, they do in most cases include human hips same with traditional mermaids, its only taurs and most nagas that do not have human hips.

Just noting nagas are pure snakes with arms and a anthropomorphic chest, lamias are fully human above the crotch and snake bellow where the crotch would be.

Then there would be an anatomical distinction of lamia and naga.

This still leaves the sleepingbag_anatomy for nagas who have hip situated sex organs, but is not applied with a fully human upper body, instead citing a lamia tag.

Correct?