General forum for discussing the possibilities, definition, and criteria for such a tag

Examples in here will be added to set #5079 until some consensus is reached for an 'official' tag name

• https://e621.net/forum/show/210822

Saw something like this on the boorus, and thought it would be interesting to have, if it doesn't already exist.
Especially since we get such..diverse body types and species on here

What this tag is for:

Stuff like:

post #321890 post #322856 post #185818 post #329812 post #133308 post #786209 post #838763 post #395729

Lots of things from nightmare_fuel sex may apply

Maybe have something for the male/* oral scenarios,

And something for penetration scenarios?

-
A less subjective/ambiguous name would be great too

--

Not sure what the female/non-penis versions would look like for this, will do some searching later and add them in

Interesting idea. Might be worth tagging.
It's somewhat subjective though. For instance, I suspect that it'd get tagged for majority of beakjob (not just the ones such as your second example), since some users seem to believe that beaks are razor-sharp.

Not sure about the name. Was going to suggest something like risky_sex, but that seems ambiguous: might get tagged for posts where characters are having sex in a risky location, such as on a battlefield.

Do you happen to remember what tag the other boorus use for that?

I know at the very least it's mirrored on gelbooru

At least one case is like what you mentioned about location (over a cliff)

risky_sex is a possibility, but in modern usage that has STD connotations as well, so probably not

-

As for the beakjob thing..hm

post #177684 is at least one case I could think of where beakjob isn't viewed in the dangerous sense

Probably depends on artist style + intent

-----

Not sure where posts like post #336258 fall on the danger/risk/scariness spectrum

-----

Then there's this infamous krystal one

post #190937

Not really dangerous or risky, maybe scary for some?
Whatever it is, it apparently still evokes some kind of revulsion going by the score

Posts like post #858170 seem well-received enough despite the subject matter

Strongly considering splitting this into a 'dangerous oral sex' thing, along with the theme in general

All the *penis|cock*biting tags are there, but they don't really imply a sense of 'danger', nor unorthodoxy, neither do they have a unifying theme (other than the biting, but some of the posts linked above don't involve biting, but can still be considered 'dangerous'

Still no idea for an unambiguous name,
or some reversed (danger for the one without a penis) without it falling into the general abuse/bdsm territory

(If you know of any examples of the latter, please mention in here)

beaks are dangerous, if you'd like to come to my place and find out

post #428529 post #439652

vagina_dentata is another good example of this concept (and dates back to Greek mythology). Whatever the decision this should be included in it somehow.

parasprite said:
vagina_dentata is another good example of this concept (and dates back to Greek mythology). Whatever the decision this should be included in it somehow.

Like this one. :3

post #112934

Oh yeah, the vagina_dentata

That's a good example of a non-oral one

Still haven't found any of the reversed scenarios though
Pretty much everything in cervical_penetration

Hm, maybe stuff like: post #782288 ?

And all those large insertion pics, (vaginal orifice insertions), as well as ridiculous fit etc.

Doesn't really seem necessary to disambiguate this by gender though, at least not now.
Since most characters have at least one orifice anyway

-

I'm thinking we could use dangerous_sex for the umbrella tag, penis danger for anything involving dangerous activities where penises are involved, and maybe vagina danger pussy_danger for vaginal examples. ie

• dangerous_sex
• penis_danger
• vagina_danger pussy_danger
• anus_danger

There's also a possibility of anus_danger, but I'd rather do what parasprite suggested in that thread about *_penetration/*_penetrating, and ensure one of these are tagged well first, then populate the rest

Example of anus_danger: post #82401

--
Thoughts?

In the examples I linked above in this post alone, most of these don't really have a 'danger' sense, as compared to the posts in the OP

For example, most of the ridiculous fit posts are drawn with the intent of depicting the theme positively. i.e

'You are not supposed to intentionally feel uncomfortable from seeing this, rather the opposite'

Should intent be disambiguated as well? And the dangerous_sex tag (or whatever the name will be) be used only for cases where it's clear that the viewer is supposed to feel a sense of dread/apprehension about what they're looking at?

(I'm leaning towards 'no' for now, but it could go either way)

--

Knotty_Curls said:
beaks are dangerous, if you'd like to come to my place and find out

[..]

titanmelon said:

• dangerous_sex
• penis_danger
• vagina_danger pussy_danger
• anus_danger

Those subtags would probably be tagged for other kinds of genitalia 'danger' than just dangerous sex. ...or would the group actually include those? Things such as, let's say, masturbating with a vacuum. ^{_{One study examined 48 cases of masturbation-related injuries. 36 of them involved vacuum cleaners.}}

If it's for other things than just sex, it should have a different name.

By the way, here's a good thumbnail for the wiki entry:
post #656052

Yeah, one of the biggest issues with this is how 'sex' is defined on the site

Wiki says:
"Images or animations depicting any kind of sexual activity between two or more characters of any description. This generally includes all kinds of penetration. Masturbation, on the other hand, is not considered sex."

-

Like you said, masturbation and self-insertions (would self-penetration (via herm penis or something count as sex? no tag for self*penetration either) would likely not count here,

Can't think of a broader umbrella tag name at the moment, but not having a tag for scenarios like these seems a bit silly just because of the name

(Will add some more suggestions as they occur)

-

Simplest thing I can think of for now, is to limit the umbrella tag to just sex-scenes

But then you risk people tagging non-sex scenes with it, as well as using the child tags for non-sex stuff too. Which sounds like a mess waiting to happen

titanmelon said:
would self-penetration (via herm penis or something count as sex?

It shouldn't be tagged as such. Those go under the auto* tags, or in that particular case, self-fuck. (Another tag that might need a better name).

Anyway, I think that it'd be best to just create the main tag for now. We can sort it into subtags later, depending on how it ends up tagged.

Yeah, agreed (all of that)
-
Updated sex wiki

Hahah, forgot about this completely

Still can't decide on whether or not dangerous_sex works better than scary_sex, or some alternative

I'll dump examples in set #5079 for now

I've read the discussion but, in my opinion, such tags would be too subjective. That's because most furry characters have claws, fangs etc. It's a norm in this fandom and one could consider pretty much any post as scary in one way or another. It's entirely subjective, and thus is would be impossible to tag it consistently.

post #215713
Nothing dangerous. Until panel 4 :P

Well, there's two categories here.

• The chance of genitals getting hurt. But this would go against TWYS. You can only tag actions that are in progress, and not actions that have yet to happen. For actions that are in progress, there's plenty of tags such as scratching, claw_marks, cbt, etc.

• Character is ugly or looks dangerous. This also can't really be tagged because, what's ugly or scary to one person may not be to another. We have plenty of useless subjective tags for this, such as nightmare_fuel, scary, creepy, evil_grin etc. Also, then you wouldn't be tagging scary sex, but scary character, so character features. The action itself is not scary.

post #185818
To me, this character looks sexy. Yep, I've been in the fandom for a while.

"Dangerous" would be something that has what actually looks like a death trap where the genitals would be contacting. Bunch of tentacles? No danger. Mouth full of oversized razor sharp teeth? Dangerous. Standard sharp teeth? Not dangerous.

Fitting for content involving shark blowjobs.

Furrin_Gok said:
"Dangerous" would be something that has what actually looks like a death trap where the genitals would be contacting. Bunch of tentacles? No danger. Mouth full of oversized razor sharp teeth? Dangerous. Standard sharp teeth? Not dangerous.

I concur.
And based on the set, it may indeed be too subjective to work. Many of them (such as post #190937 and post #140658) don't look even remotely dangerous.

Might still work if it were limited strictly to posts like...
post #775971