Same thing.

Nope.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Fur_vs_Hair

Hammie said:
Nope.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Fur_vs_Hair

Real animals don't have 'pubic fur', it's a feature gained from the anthromophorphicisation, thus, it's hair. Same thing.

Sure they do, it's just not generally visually distinct from the rest of their fur.

Hammie said:
Sure they do, it's just not generally visually distinct from the rest of their fur.

Yes, of course. It's the same as how I can't see my cat's goatee.

720p said:
Same thing.

Used to think so as well for a while

Pubic hair:
post #160374
post #128943

Pubic fur:
post #234527
post #190642

Pubic fur's basically a layer of pubic hair on fur/feathers etc.

Though now that you mention it, the 2 tags do need a lot of cleaning up

720p said:
Yes, of course. It's the same as how I can't see my cat's goatee.

Beards imply hair.
Cats do have facial fur though.

here's the thing...

Almost every illustrated animal has FUR on their pubic region:

post #238813 post #238612

Just some animals have more pronounced fur in the pattern of humanoid pubic hair.

who's to say that the 'pubic fur' is fur at all? we're looking at it, it may he hair. This is the same sort of argument that would say that we should tag for headfur and not hair. except on creatures with skin.

... as a general statement, someone who's interested in pubic hair, or is repulsed by it, aren't goign to be interested in fur and not hair or the other way around... I think it's much better to, say, alias it all to pubic_hair so it's all under one tag. and if one dislikes humans... they can -humans pretty simply.

but no one says I'm right, of course.

Alternatively, we could.... hm. we could put _hair on the skin-creatures and _fur on the fuzzy creatures, and have both imply pubic_tuft or something stupid like that. Or Pubic_growth. Or ... yeah. no.

The biggest problem I see with all of this is that people will use pubic_hair and pubic_fur interchangibly. If there's confusion already, and the tags are a mess, then chances are, people will continue messing it up, even after you clean up the posts.

Probably, and I'd say that 99% of the posts on here that should have either, really ought to have "pubic hair".

The only time I would see using "pubic fur" as valid is if the character is question doesn't have fur over most of it's skin, but there's a patch of fur in the pubic area.

Otherwise it's fair to assume that fur everywhere doesn't need a tag for specific fur locations.

I'm against the alias though on account of there being a valid possible use for "pubic fur" that shouldn't qualify as "pubic hair".
It probably needs a good bit of cleaning up, as well as a carefully written explanation of the two, and continued clean up.
I would also say that the "well people will keep messing it up" reasoning is faulty, people doing it wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do it right.

Hammie said:
Probably, and I'd say that 99% of the posts on here that should have either, really ought to have "pubic hair".

The only time I would see using "pubic fur" as valid is if the character is question doesn't have fur over most of it's skin, but there's a patch of fur in the pubic area.

But then how to you tell if it's fur or hair? if they don't have fur... how do you tell? I mean, I'd say a human doens't have pubic fur. unless you're talking about, like, bald foxes or something.

Otherwise it's fair to assume that fur everywhere doesn't need a tag for specific fur locations.

in general I agree, we don't need furry_ears and furry_left_hand, but we DO focus a lot on porn and pubic...stuff is generally a place of interest or noninterest. we used to have a pubic_tuft tag that was generally used to describe a 'tuft' of hair located in that area.. http://e621.net/tag?name=*tuft*&type=&order=count&commit=Search shows our current *_tuft tags. (including crotch_tuft which is half pubic hair/fur and half 'censor fur')

So.. a "smooth" character with no "adult" hair growth around the genetals shouldn't be tagged, but pubic fur/hair SHOULD.

I'm against the alias though on account of there being a valid possible use for "pubic fur" that shouldn't qualify as "pubic hair".

But how do you tell it apart?

really, what is the difference between: post #208598 and post #237609 or post #237205 and post #205242 ?

How do you say THIS IS FUR and THIS IS HAIR? is it the rest of the body? furries don't have pubic hair, only fur? everyone else--humans, scalies, etc has hair?

It probably needs a good bit of cleaning up, as well as a carefully written explanation of the two, and continued clean up.
I would also say that the "well people will keep messing it up" reasoning is faulty, people doing it wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do it right.

That's true, I agree. however, there's a difference between a tag that needs maininence and an overly ambiguous tag.

spike for example, is one of the tags i first started maintaining. There were about 50 or 60 pictures there which were a mismash of characters, pointy bits, and a few other things. Every few months I have to go in and clean up. Move spikes over, figure out which spike's and spike_(eric_schwartz) and which are spike_(mlp) and so forth. (it's about time to do that again actually) .. this isn't too big of a deal, because, y'know, spike isn't a commonly used tag.. but despite it being relatively clear that there are OTHER, more suitable tags (all it takes is a search after all) people still use what comes to mind first. This is a pointy thing. it is a spike....

but for something like Pubic fur/hair, this is constant maintenance. well written wikipages will help, but not fix it, especially because it's all down to individual vocabulary. two people will call the exact same things something different. (see the above hair/fur images again).. jsu depending on what words they prefer to use. it's not much different to how some guys will say "this is my penis" others will say "my cock" others will say "my dick" (or similar for vulva/vaginal areas) ... so this is a ..constant maintenance sort of thing. and those aren't really any fun.

Plus, coming from the outside... what if you're new to the site and are trying to find your fetish. how do you fidn the right tag if there are effectively two or more tags that describe the same idea--hair growth around the genitals?

"people will keep messing it up" isn't a good reason.. but "people will keep getting confused and it'll be hard to understand for newcomers and 'casual' vistors" IS.

I think that if an anthro has a region of fur on or around their genitals that is noticeably different in color or pattern to their normal fur coloration/patterning, it should be tagged pubic_hair. Pubic_fur should be aliased to pubic_hair.

I could possibly be convinced that it should, instead, be aliased to pubic_tuft, since chest hair and a tuft of chest fur are considered different, and then we can keep any anthro with that pubic hair-ish pattern tagged with pubic_tuft and reserve pubic_hair for non-anthros or other characters that have skin in the pubic region, aside from some sort of hair.

One other option would be to alias both pubic_hair and pubic_fur to pubic_tuft.

RedOctober said:
One other option would be to alias both pubic_hair and pubic_fur to pubic_tuft.

I like this idea. It doesn't cause arguments like "That's fur, not hair!" or vice versa.

720p said:
I like this idea. It doesn't cause arguments like "That's fur, not hair!" or vice versa.

what about humans

ippiki_ookami said:
what about humans

Fuck. I guess you can't go wrong with pubes?

720p said:
Fuck. I guess you can't go wrong with pubes?

y'know that might be the best option I've heard.

Not a huge fan of the word, but it definitely works.

As colloquial as it sounds, pubes makes a good in-between

ippiki_ookami said:
what about humans

It's still a tuft, even if it's hair. It's a tuft of hair.

720p said:
Fuck. I guess you can't go wrong with pubes?

I just personally don't like the sound of the word lol even if I occasionally enjoy images of humans or furries with some tuft. It just sounds...blech. That's not an argument against, just a personal comment. "Pubes" is ok by me.

Hammie said:
Not a huge fan of the word, but it definitely works.

I don't really like the word that much, which is why I left it so long before suggesting it.

I also hate the word pubes. It makes me think about stupid teenage boys I went to school with.

that said, ... Unless there are any objections:

• pubic_hair aliased to pubes
• pubic_fur aliased to pubes
• pubic_tuft aliased to pubes

and, as a note to myself... clean up: http://e621.net/tag?name=*pubic*&type=&order=count&commit=Search to get rid of 'random' tags that are not appropriate. ... unless someone else beats me to it.

SnowWolf said:
I also hate the word pubes. It makes me think about stupid teenage boys I went to school with.

Same here. It's just an obnoxious shorthand for public_hair that makes me think of Scott Tenorman.

Also, we have a hair tag, no one seems to get confused on the difference between fur covering the body, and a head of hair in addition to fur. Is it really that complicated?

It's just that the hair on the pubic region of furries tends to be depicted as the same sort of texture and whatnot as the rest of the fur, and is distinct from the hair growing out of their head.

Thanks, Snow.

• pubic_hair aliased to pubes
• pubic_fur aliased to pubes
• pubic_tuft aliased to pubes
• pubic_feathers aliased to pubes

I want to do something with stylized_pubic_hair ... but I'm not sure what. It is absolutly an awesome tag that should be kept. I want more posts tagged with it, even! But I'm not for sure on the name.

Should "pubes" be the 'standard' for crotch-fuzz? Stylized_pubes? Styled_pubes? shaped_pubes? (shaped pubic_hair?) groomed_pubes?

styled_pubes, because it kinda matches with hair_style, ya know in a creepy kinda way

I know mine match my hairstyle. Long and...in a ponytail? Nevermind.

RedOctober said:
I know mine match my hairstyle. Long and...in a ponytail? Nevermind.

O_O oh my.

okay so seeing support for styled_pubes... ... I'll shuffle thigns around to alais to that later then...