Topic: Tagging Question for 954524

Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

https://e621.net/post/show/954524

Many in the comments believe this to be anal, despite the cut-away, simply due to the way it looks. The artist has tried to say it isn't, but it frankly still looks like anal.

The vulva aren't parted and with the positioning there's no way the viewer wouldn't see a little bit of dick or, at the very least, the vulva being parted. The artist keeps changing the tags back to vaginal, yet, frankly, it's just not there to see.

If it were ambiguous which hole was being penetrated then I could see the cut-away being a determining factor here, yet with how crazy furry anatomy is having a uterus in your anus doesn't seem far fetched on this site.

Either way, it really does seem like anal here. It seems like maybe, at some point, there WAS vaginal, but what's currently in the picture isn't. It's become obvious at this point that the artist is never going to agree with this and will continue changing the tags and I'll always agree with the various commenters and not with the artist and keep changing them back because it isn't tag what you know it's tag what you SEE, and there is no vaginal penetration to be seen there.

So which is it, do you think? Obviously some help is needed to put this issue to rest.

Updated by Demesejha

Circeus said:
Huh... I'm surprised this doesn't exist XD

...I'm pretty sure I'd seen some related tag before. Anal impregnation as two separate tags will find images where there's one duo practicing anal and another practicing vaginal, so it's not a reliable search for it.

Updated by anonymous

The lack of parting of the vulva and presence of visible buttcheeks/organization of the pose itself means that under twys its definitely anal.

Its artist error, and they claim it to be vaginal, maybe its a really large vaginal opening and her anatomy is positioned very far down? But from here it definitely looks like it should be tagged anal.

Updated by anonymous

  • 1