BlueDingo said:
Driving can apply to any vehicle.

Oh yeah, that'll work. Thanks.
Edit: ...and done, all sorted out of riding.

Genjar said:
Oh yeah, that'll work. Thanks.
Edit: ...and done, all sorted out of riding.

Bear in mind that any passengers on those vehicles would be riding those vehicles so the riding tag may still be valid for some of those images. For example:

post #1232810

Butch is driving, olivia is riding.

Do we have a tag for images where a clearly anatomically anthro character acts feral? And I don't mean petplay or roleplay, I mean that the character's whole behaviour is feral, but their anatomy is too anthro to warrant the feral tag.

I would think that savage would be a good fit (because of zootopia), but the tag is already used for a character. Said tag really should have a _(character) suffix, as 'savage' is way too general to be used for a character all on its own.
post #1239466 post #885831

We have discarded_clothing for when previously worn clothes are casual tossed on the ground or something, but what about clothing that's been hung up, neatly folded, layed out flat on a surface, etc.?

Also, the clothed tag (and every tag implying it) is very badly undertagged. clothing -clothed returns over 165000 results.

I've been thinking that the transformation tag could still use more subtags. Adding the *_to_* tag group helped, but specific searches are still often difficult.

Forced_transformation seems to be tagged for posts where someone is transformed unwillingly. Curses, accidental chugging of magic potions, that sort of thing. Hasn't been tagged much so far, but could definitely be useful.

But do we have any tag for the opposite: posts where someone seems happy about being transformed? If it doesn't already exist, we probably should make one.

Come to think about it, there seems to be no tag for self-shapeshifting either (voluntarily changing own shape by magic or whatever).

Here's a rather unorthodox use of this thread: do we have a tag for this artist?

https://www.pixiv.net/member.php?id=722284

There's so much relevant content (plenty of pokephilia, such as this) that I'd be surprised if none of it has been uploaded here. Are they on the DNP list by some other name, maybe?

Genjar said:
Here's a rather unorthodox use of this thread: do we have a tag for this artist?

https://www.pixiv.net/member.php?id=722284

There's so much relevant content (plenty of pokephilia, such as this) that I'd be surprised if none of it has been uploaded here. Are they on the DNP list by some other name, maybe?

http://iqdb.harry.lu/ seems to be searching also for deleted posts (I managed to find ohmuu art), so you can find whether post was uploaded and deleted. It seems to me that nobody has posted anything of that artist yet.

Granberia said:
http://iqdb.harry.lu/ seems to be searching also for deleted posts (I managed to find ohmuu art), so you can find whether post was uploaded and deleted. It seems to me that nobody has posted anything of that artist yet.

I already tried some at random and got no matches, but they have so much content. Hard to believe that none of would've been uploaded so far. Especially when those posts are all over Tumblr, with thousands of likes.

It's mostly human_focus stuff, but pokemon/anthro on human stuff tends to get uploaded quickly regardless. But if those were DNP, that'd explain why they haven't been uploaded here.

Genjar said:
Here's a rather unorthodox use of this thread: do we have a tag for this artist?

https://www.pixiv.net/member.php?id=722284

There's so much relevant content (plenty of pokephilia, such as this) that I'd be surprised if none of it has been uploaded here. Are they on the DNP list by some other name, maybe?

I know nothing about that artist, but you may try forum #225052.
In it you possibly would find someone to "translate" the artist's name also maybe find a person with enough knowledge about japanese to help in finding out more information.

Genjar said:
Here's a rather unorthodox use of this thread: do we have a tag for this artist?

https://www.pixiv.net/member.php?id=722284

There's so much relevant content (plenty of pokephilia, such as this) that I'd be surprised if none of it has been uploaded here. Are they on the DNP list by some other name, maybe?

Dominia reveals nothing. Try sending them a message: Just 「Hello. I was wondering if I couldn't get permission to repost to e621.net?」 works, I find.

What is a shirt with short puffy sleeves called?

post #1246909

BlueDingo said:
What is a shirt with short puffy sleeves called?

post #1246909

If I am not wrong, we simply use the combination 'puffy_sleeves' + short_sleeves + shirt'. This way is quite more practical than creating new tags for every variation.

Is there a tag for posts that have tons on a votes? Like, 500+ upvotes or 500+ downvotes?

Any tags for spikes protruding from a character's shoulders, elbows, knees, etc?

post #534169

TopGoodra~ said:
Is there a tag for posts that have tons on a votes? Like, 500+ upvotes or 500+ downvotes?

We use metatags for scores:
-score:-100..100

BlueDingo said:
Any tags for spikes protruding from a character's shoulders, elbows, knees, etc?

post #534169

Is that even common?

BlueDingo said:
Any tags for spikes protruding from a character's shoulders, elbows, knees, etc?

post #534169

Looks like spines is a more appropriate tag and spikes gets used as a catch-all even though it's not always more appropriate. If anything, spines is probably the more correct catch-all. [Defensive bodily protrusions] could use a proper tag discussion to define such tags and provide a guide to promote consistency.

abadbird said:
Looks like spines is a more appropriate tag and spikes gets used as a catch-all even though it's not always more appropriate. If anything, spines is probably the more correct catch-all. [Defensive bodily protrusions] could use a proper tag discussion to define such tags and provide a guide to promote consistency.

Eh...I don't know about that...I've always considered spines to be long, thin, and sharp as to penetrate deeply into the skin of an attacker...either to hook in or deliver some sort of toxin. So, for example, a porcupine is a spiny animal.

A spike, on the other hand, is something more substantial. They are broader and stockier. An Ankylosaurs is a good example of a dinosaur covered in spikes.

They are simply different things and I don't think one should be folded into the other.

As for the sharp protrusions in this image? post #534169

...I'd definitely consider those to be spikes, and shoulder_spikes would probably be a good tag for them, but I would probably end it there. I don't think we need tags detailing EXACTLY where each spike is protruding from a character's body...that would just result in a lot of tag bloat.

Is there a tag for characters holding their mouth open with their fingers or some other tool?

Is there a tag for distinctly nonhuman anthros, e.g. "funny animals"?
post #13470 post #52515

About a 4 on this scale: post #88044

cfgv said:
Is there a tag for distinctly nonhuman anthros, e.g. "funny animals"?
post #13470 post #52515

About a 4 on this scale: post #88044

Yeah, semi-anthro. Sometimes the difference between semi-anthro and anthro is a bit hard to define, so it's occasionally undertagged or mistagged. Generally speaking, I consider any nonferal creature that isn't like typical anthros a semi-anthro (e.g. low center of gravity, tendency to walk on all fours, or lack of opposable thumbs). Hope that helps.

UnusualParadox said:
Yeah, semi-anthro. Sometimes the difference between semi-anthro and anthro is a bit hard to define, so it's occasionally undertagged or mistagged. Generally speaking, I consider any nonferal creature that isn't like typical anthros a semi-anthro (e.g. low center of gravity, tendency to walk on all fours, or lack of opposable thumbs). Hope that helps.

Thanks, I added a few more references to it in the wiki.

Do we have a tag where anthros of animals that don't have legs or feet (snails, fish, etc) have them, similar to non-mammal breasts?

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Do we have a tag where anthros of animals that don't have legs or feet (snails, fish, etc) have them, similar to non-mammal breasts?

No, but we should.
If I remember right, nobody was able to come up with a good name for it, though.

Edit: As for why it would be useful, the main argument was that searching for anthro snails and such tends to mostly find generic outdoor images where there's a tiny snail or slug on some background foliage.

Genjar said:
No, but we should.
If I remember right, nobody was able to come up with a good name for it, though.

nulliped_with_feet? Technically an oxymoron but so is non-mammal_breasts.

BlueDingo said:
nulliped_with_feet? Technically an oxymoron but so is non-mammal_breasts.

Some taggers would definitely have trouble figuring that out, but maybe we should just pick something and start using it. Can always rename the tag later later, if someone comes up with a better name.

---

Edit: Removed outdated comment. Uniped is now used as a leg count tag.

---

Anyway, I was going to post a question instead of getting sidetracked. Do we have a tag for...
post #1260915 post #599784
...creatures that seem to want to masturbate, but are finding it difficult because of their anatomy?

BlueDingo said:
nulliped_with_feet? Technically an oxymoron but so is non-mammal_breasts.

nulli- stands for 0 meaning no foot or other body part used for locomotion, such a tag would pretty much only apply to non moving animals like coral and (geometric) creatures that move with their complete body like the pokemon voltorb...

Genjar said:
Anyway, I was going to post a question instead of getting sidetracked. Do we have a tag for...
post #1260915 post #599784
...creatures that seem to want to masturbate, but are finding it difficult because of their anatomy?

Not that I know of, but impractical_anatomy would be a term I'd suggest calling it.

Genjar said:
Anyway, I was going to post a question instead of getting sidetracked. Do we have a tag for...
post #1260915 post #599784
...creatures that seem to want to masturbate, but are finding it difficult because of their anatomy?

I'd like to expand that question to include non-sex acts as well.

post #557435

Genjar said:

Come to think about it, same goes for nagas and other creatures that stand up on their 'tail'. How to tag those has been debated repeatedly, so we should just start using something. Unless someone objects, I'll start tagging those as uniped. There hasn't been many other suggestions, and it's uniform with biped and quadruped.

I suggested 'ofidioid' ("serpent-like') in a past thread , also I plan on writing a wiki page and doing some tagging in a near future.

'uni' is a prefix that means 'one' like in unidirectional (folowing one direction), uniform (one form/aspect), unisex (one for both sexes) etc. consequently 'uniped' would mean that the creature stands on one feet, which isn't the case since it stands on its venter.

BlueDingo said:
nulliped_with_feet? Technically an oxymoron but so is non-mammal_breasts.

I would sugest swapping the "nulliped" part for 'apod', since it is the actual term for creatures without feet.

O16 said:
I suggested 'ofidioid' ("serpent-like') in a past thread , also I plan on writing a wiki page and doing some tagging in a near future.

'uni' is a prefix that means 'one' like in unidirectional (folowing one direction), uniform (one form/aspect), unisex (one for both sexes) etc. consequently 'uniped' would mean that the creature stands on one feet, which isn't the case since it stands on its venter.

I would sugest swapping the "nulliped" part for 'apod', since it is the actual term for creatures without feet.

please keep in mind the system does need to be understandable to the lay person so ofidioid cannot be used i already made the case before that no reference of such a word exists, and also breaking it up in its suffixes and prefixes does not really give the meaning you are trying to imply. And i dont advise the use of "venter">_>

Also ~ped is not always taken literally to mean a humanoid style foot but rather any limb that plays a primary role in locomotion, take kangaroos for example they only have 2 feet but they often are categorized as tripedal because they use their tail as another foot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripedalism i suggested uniped in the forum because the meaning is easy to understand both from breaking down the simple suffix and prefix as well as uni~ already established in some other anatomical features on e621 and as gengar noted it rings well with the other terms we have that for the most part deal with the type of movement not the number of legs.

Regarding venter, most lay people would regard the part of the body a naga is supporting themselves on as its tail, not the abdomen.

PS: apod sounds a bit too much like something from a apple store and as i stated above these tags are more about locomotion then the number of feet a character has.

By the way i made this tag recently for balls sitting above the penis rather then below. Dont now why no one has founded a tag for these so far, would think upside-down balls would be something a lot of people would be searching for >_>;

marsupial_balls

Thru i cant get away from the feeling of the name being kinda off so would anyone have any suggestions that doesnt involve species but is easy to type, remember and understand?

Ruku said:
By the way i made this tag recently for balls sitting above the penis rather then below. Dont now why no one has founded a tag for these so far, would think upside-down balls would be something a lot of people would be searching for >_>;

marsupial_balls

Thru i cant get away from the feeling of the name being kinda off so would anyone have any suggestions that doesnt involve species but is easy to type, remember and understand?

marsupial_penis

Ruku said:
By the way i made this tag recently for balls sitting above the penis rather then below. Dont now why no one has founded a tag for these so far, would think upside-down balls would be something a lot of people would be searching for >_>;

marsupial_balls

Thru i cant get away from the feeling of the name being kinda off so would anyone have any suggestions that doesnt involve species but is easy to type, remember and understand?

Seems kind of obvious, but balls_above_penis could be an alternative.

BlueDingo said:
marsupial_penis

balls are not penises, not all marsupial penises also have balls that sit above the penis and not all characters that have balls above the penis are marsupials.

Your nothing but unclear by just posting links bluedingo?

Ruku said:
please keep in mind the system does need to be understandable to the lay person so ofidioid cannot be used i already made the case before that no reference of such a word exists, and also breaking it up in its suffixes and prefixes does not really give the meaning you are trying to imply. And i dont advise the use of "venter">_>

Also ~ped is not always taken literally to mean a humanoid style foot but rather any limb that plays a primary role in locomotion, take kangaroos for example they only have 2 feet but they often are categorized as tripedal because they use their tail as another foot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripedalism i suggested uniped in the forum because the meaning is easy to understand both from breaking down the simple suffix and prefix as well as uni~ already established in some other anatomical features on e621 and as gengar noted it rings well with the other terms we have that for the most part deal with the type of movement not the number of legs.

Regarding venter, most lay people would regard the part of the body a naga is supporting themselves on as its tail, not the abdomen.

PS: apod sounds a bit too much like something from a apple store and as i stated above these tags are more about locomotion then the number of feet a character has.

Actually you are confounding the things here:

I) the suffix 'al' modifies the word. in this case it changes the meaning for "having the same form or effect of".

Ia) 'biped', for example, means "that stands on two feet/legs". This one is more literal.

Ib) 'bipedal', for example, means "that stands like on two feet/legs". This one refers to locomotion.

Ic) kangaroos, for example, are biped, however tripedal,

II) as far as I know, in e621 we used only the ~ped terms, apparently because they are more related to the character's appearence than the ~pedal ones.

-

Apparently 'uniped' isn't what you meant, it would 'unipedal' and:

I) it actually don't matches with our usage of 'biped' and 'quadruped', both in format and meaning.

II) it would be usable to creatures that haven't the kind of body-type we are focusing on like spoink and merfolks (and I am not even considering feral snakes, slugs etc).

-

And about a word being or not "understandable":

I) this isn't so impacting if the tag isn't misleading, we only need a wiki page and to pay some attention.

II) some of our tags are words in other languages (specially japanese) without a well-known meaning, but still working.

III) Tags non-based in english tend to be less mistagged, since people are obligated to read the wiki instead of presuming what the tag means and start using it wrongly.

-

Also yes "venter".
The lower body of a naga doesn't simply is a tail, it is the equivalent to a "decapited" feral body of a snake, similarly to centaurs. Since snakes stand on their venters, the same applies to nagas.

What tag do we use for visible scent trails?

post #567321

BlueDingo said:
What tag do we use for visible scent trails?

post #567321

_{^{Reposted because I fucked up and put it in the wrong thread before.}}

[/quote]

We do have 'smell', 'scent' and 'smelly', however those two first are a mix of 'smelling' and 'smelly' itself, speaking of which, it is quite broader than what you want.

I believe that visible scent should have a specific tag, something like, well, 'visible_scent'. Also 'smell' and 'scent' should be disambiguated.

O16 said:
We do have 'smell', 'scent' and 'smelly', however those two first are a mix of 'smelling' and 'smelly' itself, speaking of which, it is quite broader than what you want.

Those were my first thought as well but those tags mainly consist of smelly feet and fart porn. ~smell ~smelly ~scent food returns hardly any relevant results.

O16 said:
I believe that visible scent should have a tag, something like 'visible_scent'. Also 'smell' and 'scent' should be disambiguated.

One possible issue with a visible_scent tag is cases where it's not being sniffed. It may get mistaken for steam, especially with hot beverages.

post #1003342post #1197483post #264398

BlueDingo said:

One possible issue with a visible_scent tag is cases where it's not being sniffed. It may get mistaken for steam, especially with hot beverages.

post #1003342post #1197483post #264398

Actually, this "stream" is composed of droplets carried away by hot air, which also carries the smell; so it technically could be interpreted as "visible scent".

post #1022931
Is there a tag for skirt fucking?

Furrin_Gok said:
post #1022931
Is there a tag for skirt fucking?

If there was a general tag for using clothes for masturbation/sex, I'd suggest that, but I'm not sure the site even has that.

edit: nvm my other request, spread mouth is a (not very used) tag

Is there any tag for this pose?:
post #1266972 post #1238736 post #1143489 post #1263035

Standing, arms on hips, legs apart. ...the Superman pose.

Now that I've started paying attention to it, it's actually pretty common. If there isn't one... eh, I'm not sure if it'd even be worth tagging. Just checking if it exists.

What do we tag for marine/aquatic humanoids, aside from the respective species tag (if one exists). I couldn't think of what to tag these aside from humanoid and marine, then I later added scylla since that's the monstergirl species but I'm unsure if we use something else here. Maybe merfolk on the second picture?

post #1268501 post #1268509

Blind_Guardian said:
What do we tag for marine/aquatic humanoids, aside from the respective species tag (if one exists). I couldn't think of what to tag these aside from humanoid and marine, then I later added scylla since that's the monstergirl species but I'm unsure if we use something else here. Maybe merfolk on the second picture?

post #1268501 post #1268509

'cecaelia'.

O16 said:
'cecaelia'.

I would have never thought of that unless I started to look for ALL kinds of humanoid names. That should probably be put in the merfolk wiki and/or we should have a better taggroup wiki for humanoids.

Do we have a tag for when the covering of a character's body differs from the one seen on some or all of their limbs (more common in avians)?

e.g. post #1256085

Is there a tag for images of characters being welcomed to the internet? It's kinda hard to explain, but posts like:

post #770908 post #71213 post #403847

Maybe something like internet_welcome? I'm bad at coming up with names.

Since leashed is aliased away, do we have a tag for when a leash is/isn't attached to someone?

post #634719 <- is / isn't -> post #1261637

BlueDingo said:
Since leashed is aliased away, do we have a tag for when a leash is/isn't attached to someone?

post #634719 <- is / isn't -> post #1261637

I never knew about such tag, if it doesn't exists maybe something like 'discarded accessory' could suit.

O16 said:
I never knew about such tag, if it doesn't exists maybe something like 'discarded accessory' could suit.

Or leashed could be de-aliased and all the submissions resorted to their proper tags. The reasoning in the original alias request that it is sound because its rare that a leash is not in use is just pure nonsense.

Not to mention discarded accessory could mean any number of things like jewelry, muzzles, whips, penis rings and others

Ruku said:
Or leashed could be de-aliased and all the submissions resorted to their proper tags. The reasoning in the original alias request that it is sound because its rare that a leash is not in use is just pure nonsense.

Actually the alias makes sense. The number of posts showing unleashed leashes is infimum in comparison with the number of posts showing leashed ones, in such way that 'leashed' and 'leash' would work almost as synonymous tag.

Ruku said:
Not to mention discarded accessory could mean any number of things like jewelry, muzzles, whips, penis rings and others

That would be more like an advantage; it could be used for various items and be specified by the accessory type, similarly to how 'discarded_clothing' works. OK that wouldn't be perfect but would cover all accessories (which share this same issue).

O16 said:
Actually the alias makes sense. The number of posts showing unleashed leashes is infimum in comparison with the number of posts showing leashed ones, in such way that 'leashed' and 'leash' would work almost as synonymous tag.

The number of images showing clothing being worn is infimum in comparison with the number of posts showing clothing not being worn, yet we have a clothed tag. Just because it's extremely common, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to tag it.

O16 said:
That would be more like an advantage; it could be used for various items and be specified by the accessory type, similarly to how 'discarded_clothing' works. OK that wouldn't be perfect but would cover all accessories (which share this same issue).

Yet you'd have no tag for when they are being worn, like the clothed tag. Also, "discarded" implies it was previously in use and simply tossed aside or something. What if it's properly hung up? On the clothing side of things, discarded_clothing doesn't count if the clothing is in a closet, hung on a coat rack, etc.

post #1231651 <- discarded / not discarded -> post #964492

BlueDingo said:
The number of images showing clothing being worn is infimum in comparison with the number of posts showing clothing not being worn, yet we have a clothed tag. Just because it's extremely common, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to tag it.

I actually saw this one coming.
The reason for such treatment is the relevance attributed to clothing; for this exact reason we have not only a tag for clothed charactes, but tags for different degrees of clothed; for this exact reason we have a tag for both clothed and "non-clothed" characters, creating a complementation unlike most tags.

BlueDingo said:
Yet you'd have no tag for when they are being worn, like the clothed tag.

As I said clothing is a special case. It also is the only group of objects that has additional tags merely to describe color variation; this only to show how out of common it is.

BlueDingo said:
Also, "discarded" implies it was previously in use and simply tossed aside or something. What if it's properly hung up? On the clothing side of things, discarded_clothing doesn't count if the clothing is in a closet, hung on a coat rack, etc.

post #1231651 <- discarded / not discarded -> post #964492

Yeah, this aspect of the 'discarded_clothing' tag have been boring me for a while. I thought about the creation of a tag for that, but this probably is a subject matter for another day.

O16 said:
Yeah, this aspect of the 'discarded_clothing' tag have been boring me for a while. I thought about the creation of a tag for that, but this probably is a subject matter for another day.

We could make a removed_clothing or unworn_clothing tag for all instances of clothing that's not being worn, implicate discarded_clothing to it since it can't be discarded and worn at the same time, decide whether holding_clothing should be implicated as well and find/make a suitable tag for the closet scenario.

BlueDingo said:
We could make a removed_clothing or unworn_clothing tag for all instances of clothing that's not being worn, implicate discarded_clothing to it since it can't be discarded and worn at the same time, decide whether holding_clothing should be implicated as well and find/make a suitable tag for the closet scenario.

I already thought about something very similar, just intended to postpone this discussion a little because I have some projects yet to be done and prefer to take one step at time (saying it that way makes it looks a bit selfish, though).

Do we have a tag for when a character's hair and fur seem interconnected? As in: the hair is very obviously not a fur tuft, heavily hair-looking, but is still connected to fur or looks as such either by sharing the same colors and/or being attached to fur? This is hard to describe, but I think the first 3 examples are probably the best for what i'm trying to explain.

post #1277373 post #1275263 post #1276004 post #1274756 post #1274306

Is there a tag for when someone is cumming on command? That is, a male or female who is being told to cum and is doing so?

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Do we have a tag for when a character's hair and fur seem interconnected? As in: the hair is very obviously not a fur tuft, heavily hair-looking, but is still connected to fur or looks as such either by sharing the same colors and/or being attached to fur? This is hard to describe, but I think the first 3 examples are probably the best for what i'm trying to explain.

I guess the closest we have in terms of "fur-hair" integration is 'mane_hair'.

Is there a tag used for a character faking pleasure during sex? I found faking_it on an old post and tagged one image with it myself. If there is not a tag already in use and were to discuss a name, faking_pleasure could be a more clear tag but "faking it" is already the term we all know.

Sorrowless said:
Is there a tag used for a character faking pleasure during sex? I found faking_it on an old post and tagged one image with it myself. If there is not a tag already in use and were to discuss a name, faking_pleasure could be a more clear tag but "faking it" is already the term we all know.

faking_it could apply to a whole range of situations...I would prefer if we used faking_pleasure.

On to my question...do we have a tag for this sort of thing?

post #1275632

basically it's dildo that pumps cum. What should we tag that sort of thing?

Sorrowless said:
Is there a tag used for a character faking pleasure during sex? I found faking_it on an old post and tagged one image with it myself. If there is not a tag already in use and were to discuss a name, faking_pleasure could be a more clear tag but "faking it" is already the term we all know.

Can't we just use 'lie'.

O16 said:
Can't we just use 'lie'.

As if the tag lying wasn't ambiguous enough. Also, you can fake it without lying with words.

O16 said:
Can't we just use 'lie'.

I'm more in favor of disambiguating lie altogether.

Sorrowless said:
As if the tag lying wasn't ambiguous enough. Also, you can fake it without lying with words.

A lie doesn't need to be verbal; you can pass true or false information without a single word.
About the ambiguity factor I have no counter argument.

O16 said:
A lie doesn't need to be verbal; you can pass true or false information without a single word.
About the ambiguity factor I have no counter argument.

True. One argument for faking_it is that it differs from regular lies. It happens to be a pretty old porn term and hey, lotsa porn here. It's a fit.

Dyrone said:
faking_it could apply to a whole range of situations...I would prefer if we used faking_pleasure.

On to my question...do we have a tag for this sort of thing?

O16 said:
Can't we just use 'lie'.

You could use dishonesty, which I had proposed as a clearer alternative to lies.

I just thought on something: wouldn't 'faking_it' be applicable to the exact opposite as well? Basically someone enjoying sex but pretending he/she/it isn't.

O16 said:
I just thought something: wouldn't 'faking_it' be applicable to the exact opposite as well? Basically someone enjoying sex but pretending he/she/it isnt.

Yep. It goes both ways.

O16 said:
I just thought on something: wouldn't 'faking_it' be applicable to the exact opposite as well? Basically someone enjoying sex but pretending he/she/it isn't.

Reversed_faking_it ?

Is there a tag or collection of tags for situations like post #1157218, post #467363, or post #1154810 where a character appears to be either fully (head-to-toe) covered in, or actually made out of, latex?

What about the liquid-latex found in situations like post #389996, post #60075, or post #1225215? There are some uses of an actual liquid_latex tag, but there's no wiki page for it.

These seem like they ought to be distinct from the primary use of the rubber tag (which is to indicate that a character is wearing something made of latex), and possibly even distinct from rubber_suit - which both implies clothing, and also covers stuff like post #481998. (There's no wiki page, but presumably, it's to indicate that the character is wearing a bodysuit that's specifically made of rubber) Heck, F-list even has a checkbox specifically for rubber characters, so this seems like a distinct thing that people would probably want to search for.

Take, for instance, the following series of posts (post #82320, post #83662, post #82324), which goes from a scenario that's unambiguously covered by rubber_suit (a character wearing a latex costume) to a scenario that seems meaningfully distinct.

I haven't found a tag for these yet, so either it's really undertagged or there actually isn't one, but there are a lot of obscure or badly underused tags so I wanted to check first before making a post about it.

If there isn't a tag for this, then I guess Tag-What-You-See would probably make it impossible to distinguish in any principled fashion between "latex skin" and "full-body latex costume", and latex is usually skin-tight anyway, so maybe there ought to at be some way to distinguish between full-body coverage and just most-body coverage? Is there a tag for that?

(While searching the wiki to help put together my post, I think I just found the answer to the second question - the goo_creature and/or goo_transformation tags combined with latex)

Victoria_Oblong said:
Is there a tag or collection of tags for situations like post #1157218, post #467363, or post #1154810 where a character appears to be either fully (head-to-toe) covered in, or actually made out of, latex?

There's living_latex and living_clothes.

JAKXXX3 said:
There's living_latex and living_clothes.

Living_latex has only 14 uses and no wiki page either, plus all the uses for it appear to be for the liquid-latex-goo-transformation case.

And living_clothes doesn't seem right, especially for the situations like post #1157218. That would seem to imply some very specific things that aren't clearly present here.

post #60830
cum spurting from offscreen? disembodied_cum??

A tag for when characters have their normal, canon proportions? "-anthrofied" doesn't remove all with non-canon proportions (or any of them if the character is already fairly humanoid in shape), searching body part size only really works for solos and only if that part is visible and official_art doesn't cover fanmade stuff.

post #1009706 <- this, not these -> post #1184686post #1148613post #787950
post #673986 <- this, not these -> post #1236280post #938863post #888222