So, I've been thinking.
With camel_toe, you can clearly see the presence of a vagina.
Would it be reasonable under TWYS to tag a camel_toe image with the "pussy" tag?
We tag penis on images with a bulge that clearly shows the shape of a penis, would this fall under the same sort of situation?

I am for it, largely because it will get rid of one of the reasons a herm tagged image might not have the pussy tag, a clean up job I work on regularly.

Sounds perfectly good to me. I can't think of any reason for the tags to not be applied symmetrically.

I'm against.
We've been telling users for years that 'penis' and 'pussy' are explicit, and shouldn't be tagged for questionable images. That change would make it even harder to keep the image ratings straight, there's enough confusion about those as is...

Unless we deem that any image where the genitals are visible enough to tag (even through clothing) should get explicit rating?

Genjar said:
Unless we deem that any image where the genitals are visible enough to tag (even through clothing) should get explicit rating?

I would support that.

Shouldn't we just tag "bulge" and "camel_toe" if we can't see it? "Bulge" tag is pretty common.
Against.

Against
A camel toe is just the outline of a pussy, so technically we don't see the actual pussy, just the outline of it
post #506909 post #505444 post #499894

Along with this, camel_toe images can and tend to be rated questionable, as opposed to pussy which renders an image automatically explicit.
I'm against.

I'm against, because if I'm searching for pussy then images with camel_toe are not what I was trying to find. Just like tight_clothing is not the same as nude no matter how clearly I can still see everything outlined.

I can sympathize with wanting to make a tag upkeep job simpler, but can't you manage the same thing by typing -camel_toe -pussy just as easily as you can -pussy ?

Because for tag function outside of that one tagging job, I don't think tagging camel_toe with pussy is gonna work.

I've changed my mind, mostly for the same reason furrypickle expressed in their first point.

The point still stands that our current tagging policy for penises that are covered, but clearly defined, is contrary to the general opinion on camel_toe/pussy tags.
If we tag a covered, but clearly defined penis, then why not pussy as well?
It's illogical to do one, but not the other.

Halite said:
The point still stands that our current tagging policy for penises that are covered, but clearly defined, is contrary to the general opinion on camel_toe/pussy tags.
If we tag a covered, but clearly defined penis, then why not pussy as well?
It's illogical to do one, but not the other.

Up until recently we didn't have an alternative tag for covered-but-clearly-outlined penises. So maybe that's why. But now that we have the vpl tag, perhaps the policy of tagging them with penis should be changed as well?

Having said that though, that would unnecessarily complicate things for all penis-related tags just in the name of symmetry. Pictures like this for instance: post #505250

Tags like erection, half-erect, penis_grab, flaccid and so on implicate penis and with good reason. But can still apply to situations were the penis is so well defined under the clothing that it can hardly be called a bulge anymore, creating a gray area for tagging to have to adapt to. When something has a bulge so clearly defined that other information is visible even through the clothing then it would be nonsense to not adapt the tagging. So while bulge doesn't implicate penis it makes some sense that vpl should.

The analogous for vpl would be vcb (visible clitoris bump). And I'd be all for tagging the clitoris if it is so clearly defined even through the clothing. But regular camel toe isn't the actual pussy clearly visible in the image anymore than two ball-sized lumps under clothes (which we don't tag as balls, just bulge). Ergo, we shouldn't tag labia majora (pussy lips) as pussy when seen through clothing, just camel_toe. It's a type of bulge that, while distinctive in shape and clearly suggestive, is still not the same as the bare genitals. Suggestive is not the same as visible.

furrypickle said:
Up until recently we didn't have an alternative tag for covered-but-clearly-outlined penises. So maybe that's why. But now that we have the vpl tag, perhaps the policy of tagging them with penis should be changed as well?

Having said that though, that would unnecessarily complicate things for all penis-related tags just in the name of symmetry. Pictures like this for instance: post #505250

Tags like erection, half-erect, penis_grab, flaccid and so on implicate penis and with good reason. But can still apply to situations were the penis is so well defined under the clothing that it can hardly be called a bulge anymore, creating a gray area for tagging to have to adapt to. When something has a bulge so clearly defined that other information is visible even through the clothing then it would be nonsense to not adapt the tagging. So while bulge doesn't implicate penis it makes some sense that vpl should.

The analogous for vpl would be vcb (visible clitoris bump). And I'd be all for tagging the clitoris if it is so clearly defined even through the clothing. But regular camel toe isn't the actual pussy clearly visible in the image anymore than two ball-sized lumps under clothes (which we don't tag as balls, just bulge). Ergo, we shouldn't tag labia majora (pussy lips) as pussy when seen through clothing, just camel_toe. It's a type of bulge that, while distinctive in shape and clearly suggestive, is still not the same as the bare genitals. Suggestive is not the same as visible.

Well if it's simply suggestive, and doesn't count as a pussy, then why would we tag it as herm, either it's a visible pussy that we can tag, and we tag it as herm, or it isn't and we shouldn't.
By saying it's enough evidence for being a herm, but not enough to count as a pussy, you're ruling opposite ways on the same thing.

Edit: I'm frankly fine with either way, but there needs to be consistency, for the sake of taggers' sanity.

I'm against this, as well. In fact, any images tagged with "bulge" shouldn't have the penis tag for the same reason. Methinks this tag needs some cleanup.

JoeX said:
I'm against this, as well. In fact, any images tagged with "bulge" shouldn't have the penis tag for the same reason. Methinks this tag needs some cleanup.

Well that's definitely an over-generalization.
There are plenty of images with bulge tags that should also have a penis tag.

Solo pics with bulges shouldn't be tagged with penis, at least in my opinion.

JoeX said:
Solo pics with bulges shouldn't be tagged with penis, at least in my opinion.

post #512398
post #507601
post #494780

Okay, well, uh... Yeah, I got nothin' :I More specifically, any images where it's just the outline of the penis, with none of it exposed, it should not be tagged with penis.

JoeX said:
Okay, well, uh... Yeah, I got nothin' :I More specifically, any images where it's just the outline of the penis, with none of it exposed, it should not be tagged with penis.

I concur.
There was some talk about making tag cleanup easier, but I think this change would make it harder. Because pussy and penis are currently (or so I thought) explicit-level tags, and it's possible to search for fe. 'pussy -rating:explicit' to find ones that need fixing.

Frankly, I wasn't even aware that we were supposed to tag some bulges as penis. The wiki says that the tag should only be used if the penis is in view. If that ever got changed, I must've either missed or forgotten the discussion.

Against. If clothes are covering it, it isn't visible. Cameltoe = questionable, pussy = explicit

ippiki_ookami said:
Against. If clothes are covering it, it isn't visible. Cameltoe = questionable, pussy = explicit

So, is a camel toe enough to justify a herm tag then?
Because saying it's visible enough to tag herm, but not visible enough to tag pussy seems wrong to me.

I've also noticed a lot of images where pants are tented, but the penis isn't visible. Those get tagged with erection, which implies penis. What do we do about that?

JoeX said:
I've also noticed a lot of images where pants are tented, but the penis isn't visible. Those get tagged with erection, which implies penis. What do we do about that?

I'm suggesting the same as last time: how about we tag those as pitching_a_tent? It's a well-known term, and could be used for some cases of morning wood too.

As furrypickle pointed out below, we actually already have a tag for that: tenting. We just need to start using it more, since it's badly undertagged.

ippiki_ookami said:
Against. If clothes are covering it, it isn't visible. Cameltoe = questionable, pussy = explicit

Unless the clothes are see-through or something where the camel_toe is explicit I guess?
post #490162
Based on your reasoning this should be questionable.
I don't think it should be.

Genjar said:
I'm suggesting the same as last time: how about we tag those as pitching_a_tent? It's a well-known term, and could be used for some cases of morning wood too.

This could work. However, I was wondering if the erection tag is accurate in that instance. I've never agreed with erection implying penis.

Genjar said:
I'm suggesting the same as last time: how about we tag those as pitching_a_tent? It's a well-known term, and could be used for some cases of morning wood too.

We already have tenting for that it's just very underused. I don't think many people know it's there.

---

So I know bulge should not be tagged penis. And bare penis should be tagged penis. What about vpl which is in that grey zone right inbetween them and all-but-bare? Some of them you can even see if it's circumcised or not. Should vpl get tagged penis or should we try to keep it off?

Personally I think it needs to be the one exception to the bulge =/= penis rule and that trying to keep the penis tag from getting added when it's so visible would be a full time job.

post #494208 post #148164 post #111424 post #505250 post #458694 post #470837

I'd like some official discussion and ruling on it in any case since vpl is a relatively recent tag and as far as I know, it's never been stated either way.

furrypickle said:
...
Personally I think it needs to be the one exception to the bulge =/= penis rule and that trying to keep the penis tag from getting added when it's so visible would be a full time job.
...

By that argument, camel toe should also be tagged as pussy since you can clearly see defined pussy lips with a camel toe.
It needs to be one or the other, again for the sanity of taggers.
Either it can't be tagged if it's underneath clothes because you can't see it, or if it's visible underneath clothes it gets tagged.
Trying to arbitrarily pick o e thing that counts as visible under clothes, while other things don't is just creating a headache that's unneeded.

Halite said:

Whether something has enough information to tag gender is not the same as whether it has enough information to get the explicit genital tag for that gender.

You were looking to see if camel_toe is enough gender information for the presence of a pussy that you can safely tag something herm instead of dickgirl if there's a camel_toe. Or at least that was your original question. And it's been left unanswered so far.

Since genders are often tagged based on both implied clues and explicit information mixed together, I would not be surprised if a mod rules that a labia bulge (camel_toe) is clear enough to imply there's a pussy and tag gender, but still not explicitly a pussy enough to get the pussy tag. These are two separate questions.

JoeX said:
However, I was wondering if the erection tag is accurate in that instance.

The wiki entry for erection specifically says not to tag it in those cases: "Not to be used on images where an erection is implied, but not visibly depicted (such as if they are wearing pants that are tented out at the crotch, which would be covered by "bulge")".

Makes sense to me. After all, it could be anything from penis to strap-on to phallic objects. The latter is especially common in comic strips: "Is that a banana in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" "It's a banana."

Why is VPL being mentioned when it hasn't even been confirmed for general use? It's just one guy's crusade to use it. :/

Further, we have the breasts tag. Clothed or not, they get tagged. This is how it's quite frankly always been. Why are we doing differently for penii and visible pussy lips?