Can we get a tag for intersex on Male vs Male on Intersex to differentiate?

Same for dickgirl/male I'd guess.

I really want to remove the images where the guy's on top, but I currently am unaware of any real way of doing so other than id blocking many, many images.

Old Suggestion: Any chance we can split the tag up into intersex/male and male/intersex for who's going into whom?

+1 on the idea.

A noble pursuit to find images of guys getting drilled :3

aurel said:
ugh...
if we had male/intersex and intersex/male tags both operating, i would be very confused on who is on top of who. Not to mention when the one on the top is getting penetrated :/
Aurel is confused
pls toss appropriate berry. or confuse heal.

How about, if we are only looking for guys getting it. We could consider those situations as pegging... No, it would ruin the tag :<
Intersex_pegging tag? (im up for this)
And just use it as a binary switch :D (WHERE IS MY CONFUSE HEAL?)
if male is on top, no tag.
If male is on the bottom, yes tag.

*aurel hit self in confusion*
*aurel fainted*

in RL porn sites it's tagged as "shemale on male". So if we add "intersex_on_male" it might be a good idea.

+1 to this ^^^^ Because less confusing

aurel said:
ugh...
if we had male/intersex and intersex/male tags both operating, i would be very confused on who is on top of who. Not to mention when the one on the top is getting penetrated :/
Aurel is confused
pls toss appropriate berry. or confuse heal.

How about, if we are only looking for guys getting it. We could consider those situations as pegging... No, it would ruin the tag :<
Intersex_pegging tag? (im up for this)
And just use it as a binary switch :D (WHERE IS MY CONFUSE HEAL?)
if male is on top, no tag.
If male is on the bottom, yes tag.

*aurel hit self in confusion*
*aurel fainted*

Well, I was defining top by top = person pentrating, not by who's literally physically on top.
Like male/intersex would be this https://e621.net/post/show/721633
or this https://e621.net/post/show/393479

also this, https://e621.net/post/show/400858
(With this setup, all cuntboy/male images should really be male/cuntboy, but that's a really easy change.)

While intersex/male would be like https://e621.net/post/show/393229
or https://e621.net/post/show/720409

Intersex pegging could work I guess. Could bring up some semantics debates though.

alirezatm said:
in RL porn sites it's tagged as "shemale on male". So if we add "intersex_on_male" it might be a good idea.

+1 to this ^^^^ Because less confusing

I'm completely up for that, it'd be like 4 new tags though.

Edit: Thinking more on it, this might be better since there are things like intersex/male frotting pics.

Aren't those covered by intersex_domination vs. male_domination (to match female_domination)?

What would we do with images like this?

post #511489

Circeus said:
Aren't those covered by intersex_domination vs. male_domination (to match female_domination)?

Those only really apply for domination/bondage type pics though. What about this?
post #682938

parasprite said:
What would we do with images like this?

post #511489

Yeah, I decided to go with Alirezatm's suggestion, gonna reflect the OP/title to reflect that now.

rdobet said:
Yeah, I decided to go with Alirezatm's suggestion, gonna reflect the OP/title to reflect that now.

intersex_on_top could be useful for finding these, but it's pretty undertagged. Just note that this tag is slightly different than the one you are suggesting. For instance:

post #705407

This would be male_on_top even though the one penetrating is intersex.

GhillieYoshi said:
A noble pursuit to find images of guys getting drilled :3

Or, y'know, just search "gay anal_penetration"

parasprite said:
intersex_on_top could be useful for finding these, but it's pretty undertagged. Just note that this tag is slightly different than the one you are suggesting. For instance:

post #705407

This would be male_on_top even though the one penetrating is intersex.

Didn't even know that was a tag. Either way, yeah, but, as you said, it doesn't help me sadly :(

ShylokVakarian said:
Or, y'know, just search "gay anal_penetration"

Ahh, but then you're just limitting yourself.

rdobet said:
Ahh, but then you're just limitting yourself.

Some of us don't like breasteses.

aurel said:
~gay ~dickgirl male anal_penetration?

It was mostly just a joke since the comment wasn't the most uhh, contributive(?) thing ever.

Also, you'd be missing pegging there. :P

ShylokVakarian said:
Some of us don't like breasteses.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really concern what I was trying to get done here. :3

aurel said:
~gay ~dickgirl male anal_penetration ~pegging ?

Guess I'll bookmark that for later. :v
Thanks!

Doesn't quite work for what I want out of this thread though since I still get things like this post #721633
or this post #723159

rdobet said:
Guess I'll bookmark that for later. :v
Thanks!

Doesn't quite work for what I want out of this thread though since I still get things like this post #721633
or this post #723159

The top is faceless_male, the bottom is disembodied_penis. That might help you narrow them down a bit more.

parasprite said:
The top is faceless_male, the bottom is disembodied_penis. That might help you narrow them down a bit more.

Oh, no that's not what I was trying to get rid of.
I don't mind not seeing both partners. I just don't want any pictures where it's the intersex isn't the "top"

Err, bump I guess. Sorry if this is discouraged, but I'm not too familiar with forum etiquette.

rdobet said:
Err, bump I guess. Sorry if this is discouraged, but I'm not too familiar with forum etiquette.

That's okay, I'm pretty much incapable of following forum etiquette.

RIP I guess then :(

Err, bumping again since I feel it's been long enough and I never got a response to amended idea.

The idea of having separate tags seems useful, actually. intersex_on_male is very different than male_on_intersex. They should only imply intersex/male, not alias to.

Furrin_Gok said:
The idea of having separate tags seems useful, actually. intersex_on_male is very different than male_on_intersex. They should only imply intersex/male, not alias to.

Yes, basically what the amended proposition was. Didn't know the tags were already there though. o.o

I don't know. I have a bad feeling about this, personally. I feel like it'd end up creating a lot of problems.

It might be worth creating those problems, if they are solvable, because the end result would be a more effective set of tags for people into this sort of thing.

Admittedly, I can't complain. I'm working on a tagging project putting male_on_feral, female_on_feral and intersex_on_feral on images tagged with bestiality. Which is a similar project in a lot of ways. So I do wish you the best of luck.

rdobet said:
Yes, basically what the amended proposition was. Didn't know the tags were already there though. o.o

They're not. They're aliased away atm.

What would you tag for 69 and other posts where it's difficult or impossible to determine who should be tagged as the top?

intersex_on_male, dickgirl_on_female, etc. were tags added back when the tags straight/gay/lesbian were still being used. They were never actually intended to imply one "topping" the other, but needed to be aliased to the new format.

Genjar said:
What would you tag for 69 and other posts where it's difficult or impossible to determine who should be tagged as the top?

This pretty much summarizes my thoughts. I don't imagine these tags would stay very clean either (constantly getting mixed up, used in place of intersex/male, etc.)

Genjar said:
What would you tag for 69 and other posts where it's difficult or impossible to determine who should be tagged as the top?

Well, both could be tagged. I've seen that on other sites. (other less favorable option would be to have those simply kept with the current ambiguous intersex/male only usage we have now.)

Still, either option is better than not having a tag for the much more numerous clear cut cases.

Furrin_Gok said:
They're not. They're aliased away atm.

Well I meant the terms were already in the system (even as just an alias).

parasprite said:
intersex_on_male, dickgirl_on_female, etc. were tags added back when the tags straight/gay/lesbian were still being used. They were never actually intended to imply one "topping" the other, but needed to be aliased to the new format.

Oh, well that explains what I was talking about in last post

parasprite said:
This pretty much summarizes my thoughts. I don't imagine these tags would stay very clean either (constantly getting mixed up, used in place of intersex/male, etc.)

I don't mind curating it for tagging mix ups. Intersex/male may as well be my default page in this site by now, and I figure the majority of the mixups will be gone after the introductory period. (as ever-present as they will be afterwards anyway.)

The last concern won't really be a possibility if the tags imply intersex/male anyway though.

Qmannn said:
Is there a reason why there couldn't simply be tags like "male_penetrating", "herm_penetrating", and "dickgirl_penetrating"? For images involving an object being used to penetrate, "female_penetrating" and "cuntboy_penetrating" could also exist as well.

There'd be no confusion when it comes to the 69 tag since one or both tags would still be correct and it would provide very accurate results when combined with the duo tag. The only thing it wouldn't indicate is who a dominant partner is, but we already have power_bottom for that.

There already exists sex specific tags for age, size, and now even bestiality.

That'd work, really I just want to not have to wade through a bunch of stuff I want to avoid seeing while looking for what I do. Also, cuntboy_penetrating, would that be cuntboy with a strapon? :v
Has that happened?

Qmannn said:
Is there a reason why there couldn't simply be tags like "male_penetrating", "herm_penetrating", and "dickgirl_penetrating"? For images involving an object being used to penetrate, "female_penetrating" and "cuntboy_penetrating" could also exist as well.

Hmm. That seems like a solid idea. And female_penetrating would solve the problem we had with the pegging tag, too...

Genjar said:
Hmm. That seems like a solid idea. And female_penetrating would solve the problem we had with the pegging tag, too...

+1 just for that.

Qmannn said:
Is there a reason why there couldn't simply be tags like "male_penetrating", "herm_penetrating", and "dickgirl_penetrating"? For images involving an object being used to penetrate, "female_penetrating" and "cuntboy_penetrating" could also exist as well.

There'd be no confusion when it comes to the 69 tag since one or both tags would still be correct and it would provide very accurate results when combined with the duo tag. The only thing it wouldn't indicate is who a dominant partner is, but we already have power_bottom for that.

There already exists sex specific tags for age, size, and now even bestiality.

That...might actually work.

Furrin_Gok said:
+1 just for that.

Also +1ing since that works for me. What exactly was the problem with the pegging tag though?

rdobet said:
Also +1ing since that works for me. What exactly was the problem with the pegging tag though?

Pegging, by definition, is a female/male act, and can't be anything else. It has to be a female, using a strapon, shoving it up a male's butt. No cuntboys on shemales or female on female, male/female only.

Furrin_Gok said:
Pegging, by definition, is a female/male act, and can't be anything else. It has to be a female, using a strapon, shoving it up a male's butt. No cuntboys on shemales or female on female, male/female only.

I know that. Wait, were people using pegging for dgirl/herm penetrating a guy? Didn't really ever see it x.x
I remember another site I go to had that same situation until they implemented new tags.

rdobet said:
I know that. Wait, were people using pegging for dgirl/herm penetrating a guy? Didn't really ever see it x.x
I remember another site I go to had that same situation until they implemented new tags.

They were using it for a female penetrating another female, or for a cuntboy penetrating a male.

Furrin_Gok said:
They were using it for a female penetrating another female, or for a cuntboy penetrating a male.

Oh, strange.

Qmannn said:
Is there a reason why there couldn't simply be tags like "male_penetrating", "herm_penetrating", and "dickgirl_penetrating"? For images involving an object being used to penetrate, "female_penetrating" and "cuntboy_penetrating" could also exist as well.

There'd be no confusion when it comes to the 69 tag since one or both tags would still be correct and it would provide very accurate results when combined with the duo tag. The only thing it wouldn't indicate is who a dominant partner is, but we already have power_bottom for that.

There already exists sex specific tags for age, size, and now even bestiality.

Take all of my +1s.

Qmannn said:
Is there a reason why there couldn't simply be tags like "male_penetrating", "herm_penetrating", and "dickgirl_penetrating"? For images involving an object being used to penetrate, "female_penetrating" and "cuntboy_penetrating" could also exist as well.

There'd be no confusion when it comes to the 69 tag since one or both tags would still be correct and it would provide very accurate results when combined with the duo tag. The only thing it wouldn't indicate is who a dominant partner is, but we already have power_bottom for that.

There already exists sex specific tags for age, size, and now even bestiality.

Genjar said:
Hmm. That seems like a solid idea. And female_penetrating would solve the problem we had with the pegging tag, too...

I like this suggestion a lot. And I think it might be the best option for both of these. +2 from me (one for each point)

So uh, is it approved? (Should we add X_penetrated for further clarity?)

rdobet said:
So uh, is it approved?

Sure. I'll I'm going to leave the penetration implications for later, but I'll run the gender ones now.

Tags we are working with:

• male_penetrating
• female_penetrating
• intersex_penetrating
• dickgirl_penetrating
• herm_penetrating
• maleherm_penetrating
• cuntboy_penetrating

Things to keep in mind:

• Penetration currently does not include fingering, fisting, vore, or deep_rimming (I'm not against these being used for it, but current rules are to not tag these with penetration)
• Sex toys and penises are the primary target here, but I'm also fine with tails and tentacles.

Pending:

• tentacle_penetrating (pending)
• tail_penetrating (pending)

I think these might be useful for solving some related tagging problems, but I'd like to hear what others say about them before implicating them to anything.

rdobet said:
(Should we add X_penetrated for further clarity?)

I think I'd rather wait on adding another set of tags until this set is well-established. Both to prevent mixing the two up while mass tagging (they have very similar names) and to help focus our efforts.

When we are more used to these tags as well as their benefits/limitations, we can discuss the a new set.

parasprite said:

Pending:

• tentacle_penetrating (pending)
• tail_penetrating (pending)

I think these might be useful for solving some related tagging problems, but I'd like to hear what others say about them before implicating them to anything.

You mean for tail_sex, horn_sex and such? The main problem with those seems to be that they get mistagged for masturbation instead of sex. Aliasing those from *_sex to *_penetrating would make the usage even less clear, but implicating those should be fine.

The difficulty with those pending ones, Horn, Tentacle, Tail penetrating... If there are also those viable for penetration, people could easily tag the wrong thing. There are times when the tail, horn, or tentacles have an orifice that could be penetrated.

Furrin_Gok said:
The difficulty with those pending ones, Horn, Tentacle, Tail penetrating... If there are also those viable for penetration, people could easily tag the wrong thing. There are times when the tail, horn, or tentacles have an orifice that could be penetrated.

You could say the same for the tags mentioned above, but I don't think it would be as much of an issue as we're making it out to be. Especially since examples of that are pretty uncommon (although tentacles do have tentacle_fellatio).

Genjar said:
You mean for tail_sex, horn_sex and such? The main problem with those seems to be that they get mistagged for masturbation instead of sex. Aliasing those from *_sex to *_penetrating would make the usage even less clear, but implicating those should be fine.

I was thinking more along the lines of keeping them as separate tags (i.e., not specifically for sex or masturbation).

This sounds really great

Question: Do we have an umbrella tag for penetrations and insertions etc? There was supposedly some discussion about it somewhere

If we don't, then how about making one, and using that (or alongside) *_penetrating / *_penetrated?

-
Also, the topic title should probably be renamed to reflect the new discussion

titanmelon said:
This sounds really great

Question: Do we have an umbrella tag for penetrations and insertions etc? There was supposedly some discussion about it somewhere

If we don't, then how about making one, and using that (or alongside) *_penetrating / *_penetrated?

-
Also, the topic title should probably be renamed to reflect the new discussion

• penetration
• Insertions were deprecated (except for multiple_insertions), they've all been aliased to their *_penetrated counterparts.

Unless you were talking about something else.

Title changed to reflect changes in proposals.

parasprite said:

Pending:

• tentacle_penetrating (pending)
• tail_penetrating (pending)

I think these might be useful for solving some related tagging problems, but I'd like to hear what others say about them before implicating them to anything.

Maybe I'm mistaking what you intend here, but I think it might be better to avoid putting these in the same class as the new "<gender>_penetrating" tags. For example, with a potential tail_penetrating tag, I think it would be more clear to consider that as whatever the tail's owner's gender is. So if a female were using her tail to penetrate someone, it would just be female_penetrating. Any existing tail-penetration related tags we currently have could then be applied alongside. I think it would be best to leave the new tag format to exclusively cover genders, keeping it as a tool to help establish a particular dominance structure in the picture, which is what I view is one of the main problems these tags are helping to solve.

With things like tentacles, I'm not sure we even need the addition of another tag besides the ones we already have for tentacles, especially since they're mostly genderless, and tentacles aren't usually the ones being penetrated. Searching for a combo of tentacles and penetration should still handle those cases right?

However, it would probably be useful to include another *_penetrating case of some sort to cover instances of androgynous or genderless characters doing the penetrating, even if it would probably be excessively rare. We might even be able to go after non-gendered monsters like tentacles from that angle too, if necessary.

wouldn't overwrite the gender tags, it would be used with them so you could look up a female using her tail on a male with male/female female_penetrating tail_penetrating

Furrin_Gok said:
tail_penetrating wouldn't overwrite the gender tags, it would be used with them so you could look up a female using her tail on a male with male/female female_penetrating tail_penetrating

Right, but the same tag formatting style makes it sort of confusing imo. Like I noted earlier, you could just use whatever the current tags are for penetration with a tail alongside <gender>_penetrating in the same manner you suggest. If for some reason the current tailsex tags had a need to be changed and made more explicit, even a minor difference in format would be better. People learn to tag things by example, mostly.

I mean, it's not like it's a really huge deal either way, I just sort of think if you're going to create a "series" of tags, it's best to keep them focused on their purpose. You add tail_penetrating, you're going to end up with dildo_penetrating, strapon_penetrating, hand_penetrating, tongue_penetrating, finger_penetrating, head_penetrating, nipple_penetrating, penis_penetrating, literallyEverySingleThing_penetrating, etc. I don't think that's particularly sustainable.

Crispix said:

I mean, it's not like it's a really huge deal either way, I just sort of think if you're going to create a "series" of tags, it's best to keep them focused on their purpose. You add tail_penetrating, you're going to end up with dildo_penetrating, strapon_penetrating, hand_penetrating, tongue_penetrating, finger_penetrating, head_penetrating, nipple_penetrating, penis_penetrating, literallyEverySingleThing_penetrating, etc. I don't think that's particularly sustainable.

I'm not against that (it would actually fill a needed gap*) but I agree that now's not really the time to do it.

I'm thinking about adding wiki pages for the male/female/intersex_penetrating tags, but I want to make sure I got this right.

• female_penetration is only used for female on male or female on intersex pegging and not female on female.
• male_penetration and intersex_penetration is only used for male on intersex and intersex on male, respectively, and not male on male or intersex on intersex.

Is this correct?

sdrawkcaB said:
I'm thinking about adding wiki pages for the male/female/intersex_penetrating tags, but I want to make sure I got this right.

• female_penetration is only used for female on male or female on intersex pegging and not female on female.
• male_penetration and intersex_penetration is only used for male on intersex and intersex on male, respectively, and not male on male or intersex on intersex.

Is this correct?

I assume you mean male_penetrating, female_penetrating, intersex_penetrating rather than *_penetration.

They're pretty self-explanatory to me. male_penetrating is for if a male is the one penetrating someone else (regardless of gender). female_penetrating - same deal, but with a female as the one doing the penetrating. Etc.

Other searches in combination with these can help narrow the specifics of male/female, male/male, male/intersex...

Qmannn said:
Wait, why? These restrictions seem arbitrary and like they would needlessly complicate things.

Before sending my post, I took a small glimpse at the posts and thought the tags were restricted to what I listed.

Qmannn said:
You also seem to be lumping the various intersexes in with eachother, unless you're just using "intersex" to refer to the same type of intersexed character.

That was pure lazyness. Instead of listing shemale/herm/cuntboy/etc, I typed "intersex".

Wodahseht said:
I assume you mean male_penetrating, female_penetrating, intersex_penetrating rather than *_penetration.

Yes, exactly.

I'm going to go ahead and say no to limiting x_penetrating from x/x pairs. Arbitrary rules like this tend to produce a never-ending stream of unnecessary cleanup work.

Just realized something while typing another post out about stuff like this:

Even if we use *_penetrating to specify which character is doing the actual penetrating, it doesn't seem to be very useful if you want to other things, like:

-
The big_dom_small_sub and small_dom_big_sub tags address this somewhat, but they don't specify gender nor who's doing the penetrating

-
All the *_on_* tags (human_on_anthro etc. address this somewhat, since the first listed character is usually perceived to be the 'active' one.

But this isn't an official rule, so in cases where people use the tags/don't read the documentation, there'll be cases where active anthros and passive humans are tagged in human_on_anthro, which is being used for active humans and passive anthros only*

*(Note that this is NOT the case right now, since both combinations are aliased to a single tag, to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening)

----

---

I have a couple suggestions about that, will update this post later

Those are covered by the *_domination tag group, such as female_domination.

Hmm, that's a possibility. I'm not too sure on some cases though

Would you say stuff like this:

post #851811

is femdom in the bdsm term of the word?

post #830374

(that's what it seems to be used for the most, going from femdom posts and the like)

'femdom', and an active female partner seem to be two different, but related concepts; where femdom denotes a particular sub-fetish of bdsm (active female partner + bdsm context)

The above pic has an active female, but I wouldn't consider it a form of bdsm play (which depends on how narrow or broad the scope is for stuff like this)
-

Couple other cases:

post #619363

Male domination in the bdsm context? (active male, passive female)

post #290065

-
What about post #772239 ?

both female and male are active

----

I like the idea of using the *dom tags for cases outside the bdsm context, since that fits well with the big dom small sub and small dom big sub tags, but that might cause the *dom tags to lose their associated bdsm context, which is what it's being used mostly for
-

How about a separate tag for sexually active characters in comparison to a passive one? Maybe

or

and

or

?
-

This way, the *dom tags retain their current usage and context, while allowing the 'lighter' cases to be found without mixing too much and making it difficult to find either effectively

The X_penetrating tags are very nice, if not widely applied yet, but I have a similar issue to the original poster here - I want to find images where a male is being penetrated anally, but don't care if there's anything else going on in the image. (For instance, I wouldn't want to exclude pictures where both a male and a female are being penetrated)

As far as I can tell, this is difficult/impossible to perfectly specify with only "penetrating" tags. It seems like a <gender>_penetrated tag would be very helpful as well.

For instance, I could try male ~male/male ~female_penetrating ~intersex_penetrating ~solo anal, but that would fail:

- in the case of a picture containing both dickgirl/female anal and male/female vaginal, which would throw a false positive. (To pick an example) Adding, say, -vaginal or -male/female would exclude images with pegging, sex where both are penetrated by toys, or M/M/F threesomes.

- in the case of a picture containing two males, both of whom are being penetrated by a dildo but not touching each other, which would throw a false negative (To pick another.) Any tags to catch this (~anal_masturbation, ~toying_self) open up other false positives.

Specifying who's penetrating doesn't really specify who's getting penetrated. It seems like <gender>_penetratED tags would be helpful and useful.

+1 on the equivalent *_penetrated tags, and to waiting for one set to be established first

-

[sex]_receiving seems...even more ambiguous, since receiving is a psuedo-euphemism in this case, not a literal verb

I personally think the penetrating/penetrated pair is easier to remember/associate, but if there are better ideas, that's fine too

titanmelon said:
Just realized something while typing another post out about stuff like this:

Even if we use *_penetrating to specify which character is doing the actual penetrating, it doesn't seem to be very useful if you want to other things, like:

1. Denote which character is the 'active' or 'passive' character.

post #782136

male_penetrating

is, of course valid, but it doesn't give any idea about which character is 'active'.

-
The [gender]_on_top tag somewhat accomplishes that, but not all characters physically on top are also active:

post #842897

-
The big_dom_small_sub and small_dom_big_sub tags address this somewhat, but they don't specify gender nor who's doing the penetrating

-
All the *_on_* tags (human_on_anthro etc. address this somewhat, since the first listed character is usually perceived to be the 'active' one.

But this isn't an official rule, so in cases where people use the tags/don't read the documentation, there'll be cases where active anthros and passive humans are tagged in human_on_anthro, which is being used for active humans and passive anthros only*

*(Note that this is NOT the case right now, since both combinations are aliased to a single tag, to prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening)

----

2. Denote active/passive penetration for different genders

ie tagging male_penetrating on
something like
post #313438
isn't going to be of much help to determine who's being penetrated, but there is a difference here:

post #606872

Thing is, the tag (male_penetrating)doesn't provide any additional information about it aside from who's doing the penetration.

-
The big_dom_small_sub and small_dom_big_sub tags address this somewhat, but they don't specify gender nor who's doing the penetrating

---

I have a couple suggestions about that, will update this post later

I did suggest x_penetrated tags to be used in accordance with this to be used which would slightly alleviate your problem.

There's also the power bottom tag I'd guess.

Oh, I see this has already been pointed out. Didn't notice there was a third page, sorry.

:p
-

Should object_insertion be moved to object_penetration?
post #367546

Buuump

The major *_penetrating tags have over 9000 ~10 000 tags already by post count ,

But *_penetrated is still empty for sex-gender tags

Can we start tagging those?

titanmelon said:
Should object_insertion be moved to object_penetration?
post #367546

Generally, objects are inserted. Not penetrated. Except for penetrable_sex_toy, which already has a tag.