Unalias the following tags:

• anal_vibrator (alias vibrator_in_anus, vibrator_in_ass to it)
• anal_dildo (alias [[dildo_in_ass to it)
• vaginal_dildo
• urethral_dildo

These tags (but not, mysteriously enough, vaginal_vibrator nor dildo_in_mouth...) were aliased with no discussion at all a year ago with the shoddy excuse that "it's a dildo/vibrator regardless of where it is". This completely misses the point of the tags. It's not about it being a dildo/vibrator, it's about the action being performed. The fact that replacement tags have sprung up is a pretty good indicator that people want to be able to find these.

By that same logic we have no justification whatsoever for anal_fingering, because "it's still fingering regardless of the hole", right?. Heck, let's just alias anal_penetration to anal while we're at it.

You need to use more sarcasm and be more passive aggressive about it to ensure we understand that you dislike something.

I guess our current use of orifice + object would cover any (or at least the majority) of those cases, however a problem remains: When someone tag a post with "anal_dildo" (for example), it results in the "dildo" tag, but the "anal" tag is lost in the process. Unless there is a way for a tag to result in two or more tags also excluding itself (X → Y₁ + … + Y_n - X), I guess we should restore the mentioned tags.

Circeus said:

[…] anal_dildo (alias [[dildo_in_ass […]

I bealive that you missed a "]]" here.

I actually think the "X_dildo" and "X_vibrator" tags should probably disappear altogether because it actually goes against TWYS. The "vaginal" part of "vaginal dildo" is nothing more than an inference about the nature of the dildo due to how it's being used. Many sex toys are pretty much simply designed to go in a hole. There are a few distinctive and purpose-built anal toys and a few distinctive and purpose-built vaginal toys but I can't remember the last time I saw furry porn that depicted a dildo as anything but a disembodied penis or rough simile of one (I have seen bullet vibrators depicted but those are multi-use toys anyway). If you can find a picture of a character using a distinctly anal-play focused toy (like an Aneros) or a distinctly vaginal-play focused toy (like a G-Spotter) then I suppose you might be able to apply the "X_dildo" or "X_vibrator" tags.

Honestly these tags are all awful, in my opinion. The way they are worded makes it sound as though they are a special type of vibrator / dildo / whatever, designed for that particular orifice, which is not the case.

I have less of a problem with tags like dildo_in_vagina. I'm not convinced we need them, but they are a hundred thousand times better than vaginal_dildo.

I'm going to be totally honest, in my view, the tags you are proposing are quite honestly about on par in terms of awfulness with emoji being used as tags.

Your comparison to anal_fingering is a bit off. It would be more akin to if you were suggesting the tags vaginal_fingers and anal_fingers.

A semi-relevant topic was about Ben_wa beads & anal beads, which are used differently but ultimately are the same type of object. Should we rename popularized sex toys into location-neutral terms, a la anal_beads -> sex_beads (to just name one)?

Also, Circeus, your second bullet point should read anal_dildo (alias dildo_in_ass to it). You forgot the double backward brackets after the first dildo.

Siral_Exan said:
A semi-relevant topic was about Ben_wa beads beads & anal beads, which are used differently but ultimately are the same type of object. Should we rename popularized sex toys into location-neutral terms, a la anal_beads -> sex_beads (to just name one)?

Since without a picture showing them being shoved into one orifice or the other it's fairly difficult to differentiate them (and even if you do have a picture of them being shoved into/pulled out of a specific orifice, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's not a case of anal beads being used "incorrectly" or Ben-wa balls being used "incorrectly") I think sex_beads is the more appropriate tag to use.

Clawdragons said:
I have less of a problem with tags like dildo_in_vagina. I'm not convinced we need them, but they are a hundred thousand times better than vaginal_dildo.

My question is why not? They just offer a bit more granularity, doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Is there a real argument against them? Other than the fact that you just don't like the wording of the names? Throwing a tag out just cause its name is poorly worded seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[/quote]

Siral_Exan said:
A semi-relevant topic was about Ben_wa beads & anal beads, which are used differently but ultimately are the same type of object. Should we rename popularized sex toys into location-neutral terms, a la anal_beads -> sex_beads (to just name one)?

Both those things are real things with specific intended purposes. That's almost like turning "buttplug" into "sexplug" because you saw an image of a character sucking on one or inserting it vaginally.

Dyrone said:
Both those things are real things with specific intended purposes. That's almost like turning "buttplug" into "sexplug" because you saw an image of a character sucking on one or inserting it vaginally.

The difference between the argument for sex_beads and the argument for sexplug is that it's pretty difficult to mistake a buttplug for a vaginal toy. It is, however, entirely possible to mistake anal beads for Ben-wa Balls and vice versa.

You could pair "sex_beads" with "vaginal_masturbation" and simply have the viewer infer that the sex beads in question must be Ben-wa Balls, but outright tagging such a picture with "Ben-wa_balls" is TWYK.

Clawdragons said:
Honestly these tags are all awful, in my opinion. The way they are worded makes it sound as though they are a special type of vibrator / dildo / whatever, designed for that particular orifice, which is not the case.

I have less of a problem with tags like dildo_in_vagina. I'm not convinced we need them, but they are a hundred thousand times better than vaginal_dildo.

I'm going to be totally honest, in my view, the tags you are proposing are quite honestly about on par in terms of awfulness with emoji being used as tags.

Your comparison to anal_fingering is a bit off. It would be more akin to if you were suggesting the tags vaginal_fingers and anal_fingers.

Ok, I agree with the exchange of orifice_object by object_in_orifice, but why exactly do these tags wouldn't be useful?
If orifice_object and object_in_orifice are aliased to object (current situation), then orifice would be lost when someone attempt to add the tag; while maintaining the tags non-aliased enables the adequate implications to be made and nothing would be lost.

Dyrone said:
My question is why not? They just offer a bit more granularity, doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Is there a real argument against them? Other than the fact that you just don't like the wording of the names? Throwing a tag out just cause its name is poorly worded seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Keep in mind that every tag comes with a cost. Every tag requires effort to constantly tag, and new tags require effort to go back and tag previous images.

Upkeep effort is something we really ought to keep in mind. A lot of posts are under-tagged as it is, so adding to the burden needs to be carefully considered. It's not as simple as "this could be useful so let's do it".

In the case of dildo_in_vagina and similar tags, there are a bit under 23000 posts tagged with dildo. As such, the tagging project to add the relevant tags to each of those would be quite extensive.

Furthermore, there are other various issues that come with this. For one, how does this work with, say, improved_dildo? What about other sex toys?

If you want my real opinion, what I think is this: the right balance between functionality and effort would be struck by a tag like vaginal_toying, anal_toying, and the like.

It encompasses all toys, so it is a bit more general, but ought to give about the same results when combined with a specific toy name. In other words, your search would be something like vaginal_toying dildo and you'd get pretty accurate results, for the minimum number of additional tags added.

Dyrone said:
Both those things are real things with specific intended purposes. That's almost like turning "buttplug" into "sexplug" because you saw an image of a character sucking on one or inserting it vaginally.

I guess the problem here is that be wa balls and anal beads not only have simillar purposes, but are enough simillar in appearance to cause confusions.

O16 said:
I guess the problem here is that be wa balls and anal beads not only have simillar purposes, but are enough simillar in appearance to cause confusions.

It's Schrodinger's Sex Toy! It exists in both states until observed in use!

Clawdragons said:

If you want my real opinion, what I think is this: the right balance between functionality and effort would be struck by a tag like vaginal_toying, anal_toying, and the like.

It encompasses all toys, so it is a bit more general, but ought to give about the same results when combined with a specific toy name. In other words, your search would be something like vaginal_toying dildo and you'd get pretty accurate results, for the minimum number of additional tags added.

I don't know. If the sex toy in question is just placed in the orifice, but isn't "active" or being moved (like buttplugs) does that counts as "toying"?

Kavellrist said:
It's Schrodinger's Sex Toy! It exists in both states until observed in use!

Do you mean it have three names? One when isn't in use and another two depending of how it is used (and a I am not even counting the possibility of it be inserted in the mouth or anywhere else).

O16 said:
Do you mean it have three names? One when isn't in use and another two depending of how it is used (and a I am not even counting the possibility of it be inserted in the mouth or anywhere else).

Urethral beads

BlueDingo said:
Urethral beads

Because there's nothing sexier than simulating the act of passing multiple stones.

Those would still be perfectly searchable if the *_insertion tags hadn't been aliased away. (We used to tag *_insertion specifically for objects).

With that tag group, it was possible to search for something like vibrator anal_insertion, vibrator vaginal_insertion etc, without getting too many unrelated posts.

But the toying_* tags are almost as good. You can still search for something like toying_* anal dildo.

Genjar said:
Those would still be perfectly searchable if the *_insertion tags hadn't been aliased away. (We used to tag *_insertion specifically for objects).

With that tag group, it was possible to search for something like vibrator anal_insertion, vibrator vaginal_insertion etc, without getting too many unrelated posts.

I don't know if I expressed my opinion properly, so I will try it again.
I guess the problem here isn't that we need these tags (because we actually don't), the problem is that we shouldn't alias them away. All of these tags ("vaginal_vibrator" etc) possess two distinct meanings inside them: the type of sex toy and the orifice in which it is being inserted.
Taking "anal_dildo" as example: If "anal_dildo" be aliased to "dildo" the tag "anal" will be lost; however if we maintain it there is the possibility to imply it to both, "anal" and "dildo".

O16 said:
Taking "anal_dildo" as example: If we alias "anal_dildo" to "dildo" the tag "anal" will be lost; however if we maintain it there is the possibility to imply it to both, "anal" and "dildo".

You mean like open_smile?

O16 said:
All of these tags ("anal_dildo", "vaginal_vibrator" etc) possess two distinct meanings inside them: the type of sex toy and the orifice in which it is being inserted.

I don't see that as a major problem, because those tags were barely used in the first place. Anal_dildo, for example, was tagged 25 times (mostly by Circeus), and vaginal_vibrator only six times. Vaginal_dildo was tagged eight times, and nobody used it after 2012.

With such low counts, those wouldn't even be worth implicating.

BlueDingo said:
You mean like open_smile?

Yes. There are "smile" and "open_mouth" but no one acepted to alias "open_smile" to one of these.

Genjar said:
I don't see that as a major problem, because those tags were barely used in the first place. Anal_dildo, for example, was tagged 25 times (mostly by Circeus), and vaginal_vibrator only six times.

With such low counts, those wouldn't even be worth implicating.

Wait moment, six? There are 30 posts currently tagged with it.

O16 said:
Wait moment, six? There are 30 posts currently tagged with it.

Hm. You're right.
Looks like most of them were tagged in 2009, the first search must've timed out or something.

Regardless, considering how little it's been used lately, I wouldn't consider it worth keeping. Seems like users prefer the toying_* tag group over those.

Let's do a test:

O16: part_toy
anal_dildo anal_vibrator anal_buttplug vaginal_dildo vaginal_vibrator vaginal_buttplug
Tag count = 6 (parts x toys)

vs.

Genjar: toy + part_insertion
dildo vibrator buttplug anal_insertion vaginal_insertion
Tag count: 5 (parts + toys)

O16 would have a higher tag number but would have no chance of false positives.
Genjar would have a lower tag number but false positives may show up.

Note that this obviously doesn't show every possible tag. Results using every possible tag would be higher but can be calculated using the equation next to the totals.

Genjar said:
Hm. You're right.
Looks like most of them were tagged in 2009, the first search must've timed out or something.

Regardless, considering how little it's been used lately, I wouldn't consider it worth keeping. Seems like users prefer the toying_* tag group over those.

I don't know... Usually I would prefer to be safe and suggest the implications, but I am not that sure now.

BlueDingo said:
Let's do a test:

O16: part_toy
anal_dildo anal_vibrator anal_buttplug vaginal_dildo vaginal_vibrator vaginal_buttplug
Tag count = 6 (parts x toys)

vs.

Genjar: toy + part_insertion
dildo vibrator buttplug anal_insertion vaginal_insertion
Tag count: 5 (parts + toys)

O16 would have a higher tag number but would have no chance of false positives.
Genjar would have a lower tag number but false positives may show up.

Note that this obviously doesn't show every possible tag. Results using every possible tag would be higher but can be calculated using the equation next to the totals.

Is this a joke? Since my sense of humor is pretty strange¹, sometimes I have dificulty to notice if someone is joking or not.

-1. "Anal_vibrator" suggests it's a vibrator made for the anus, not a vibrator in the anus.

O16 said:
Ok, I agree with the exchange of orifice_object by object_in_orifice, but why exactly do these tags wouldn't be useful?
If orifice_object and object_in_orifice are aliased to object (current situation), then orifice would be lost when someone attempt to add the tag; while maintaining the tags non-aliased enables the adequate implications to be made and nothing would be lost.

I do agree with this idea, though. object_in_orifice is much more understandable than orifice_object.