Implicating multiple_male → a_bit_more_specific_for_more_than_one_male_tag
Link to implication

Reason:

Incase there is art of multiple males on, let’s say, One sex; Female, etc. I am wanting to do a drawing of multiple males presented above viewer, but because there’s no exact way to specify that, possibly a tag could be added to help with that.

We don't use multiple_male or multiple_males. Just use male/female and group.

Lafcadio said:
We don't use multiple_male or multiple_males.

Out of curiosity, is there a particular reason for this?
I know certain other image archive websites have xgirl and xboy tags.

donteven said:
Out of curiosity, is there a particular reason for this?
I know certain other image archive websites have xgirl and xboy tags.

Exactly. Not only that, what if they’re interacting with the viewer all at once? You can’t put, Male/Viewer as a tag.

MsArcticFox said:
Exactly. Not only that, what if they’re interacting with the viewer all at once? You can’t put, Male/Viewer as a tag.

You technically can tag male/viewer. Nobody's ever used that tag, but there are already several interacting-with-viewer tags.

• looking_at_viewer
• talking_to_viewer
• penis_towards_viewer
• pointing_at_viewer
• cum_on_viewer
• reaching_towards_viewer

There's some other tags that are related to interacting-with-the-viewer like first_person_view and breaking_the_fourth_wall. There also seems to be several implicated *_pov tags that are subsets of the first_person_view tag.