Ok So... Right now a bunch of foreskin tags still imply uncut and as a whole the entire tag is kind of a mess. As much as it seems like a good idea to have foreskin and its friends (man that sounds funny out loud) implicate uncut with most of their tags, unfortunately it breaks the tagging on some images, leading to certain descriptors needing to be removed from the image for it to avoid using the uncut tag.

retracted_foreskin (this one is ok), foreskin_play (issue), long_foreskin(possible issue), phimosis(ok), partially_retracted_foreskin, foreskin_piercing(issue), foreskin_pull (big issue, and why the thread was made)

One of the fundamental issues with this arises with, especially and most specifically https://e621.net/wiki/show/foreskin_pull

The wiki page describes as such:

General: foreskin pull
The act of pulling on an uncut foreskin, often using one's lips.

Furthermore despite having it in the name, it doesn't implicate foreskin.

Tags that need to implicate foreskin, but don't.

phimosis > foreskin
foreskin_pull > foreskin
foreskin_play > foreskin
uncut > foreskin

and most shockingly of all, uncut does not implicate foreskin. Still.

As just uploaded recently, (Warning both feature circumcision kink please don't clickthrough if squeamish, you have been warned.)
post #1940550 and post #1940553 (which I just removed foreskin_pull from to fix this issue) imply uncut which is an incorrect/invalid tag as per twys and the foreskin tags should with the exception of the "retracted" tags not implicate uncut due to this issue.

I know its a small case basis as this isn't a popular fetish, but its a clear issue with the tag and how unclean the implications web is around it.

Generally speaking the idea of implications is that they "imply" a certain thing to be true.

So if X is true then the implication that Y is, must also be true.

But a simple descriptor of foreskin as an organ or elements of it (such as foreskin_pull or foreskin_piercing) should not imply that it is an uncut foreskin.

tell me again why uncut must exist as a tag

Blind_Guardian said:
tell me again why uncut must exist as a tag

Honestly, there's no reason for it to exist at all, The main reason it still exists is because after a thread three years ago now, when foreskin and uncut were de-aliased and separated from each other the uncut tag was left in as a concession because technically there is a place for it in theory as a comparator to circumcision but. Since by its very nature it's the default state of the penis, like other tags that are considered givens, I'm still unsure why it's this way.

IIRC there are a few tags on here that are listed as "invalid tag" or otherwise aliased away into other things because theyre generally accepted to be useless or meaningless. Uncut really as a word just means "natural" or... well Uncut. Which is the default state of things. I honestly don't get it but anyway; thats not for me to decide.

The original purpose of the discussion 3 years ago was to reverse the alias, so that Uncut became Foreskin, but they were instead separated into two tags which gives us our messy problem today. The two best courses of action right now to fix the issue come out to either

A: De-implicate the above offending tags and make Uncut imply foreskin instead instead of the other way around which is a little silly tbh

B: alias Uncut away so that Foreskin is the only remaining tag.

TL;DR there was a 7 page train wreck of an argument on which tag to use as the proper scientific tag for Foreskin, so now we have both. But as was argued even back then, getting rid of uncut in favor of just using foreskin is still the better option.

Edit-
Apologies in advance if I seem abrasive as this is not my intention, its just how I speak and I mean no ill or any negativity towards anyone. I have learned in recent years that I sometimes say things that come off as super contentious or sound like I am being antagonistic and I do not wish to present that way so I do apologize if anything said above comes off as rude.

Aliasing uncut to foreskin would still be a horrible idea, because searching for "uncut" should not bring up pictures of severed foreskins.

hiekkapillu said:
Aliasing uncut to foreskin would still be a horrible idea, because searching for "uncut" should not bring up pictures of severed foreskins.

But searching for foreskin and seeing severed foreskins is ok. But searching for testicles and seeing severed testicles is ok. But searching for penis and seeing severed penis is ok. I think it's stupid we use uncut if that wasn't clear. I say tough shit to the people who see severed foreskins and don't have their blacklist configured properly.

Is there a lighter version of gore that could be used in the cases of circumcision and other similar procedures that include blood and cutting but not at the gore level? I don't know if such a tag exists but it could be applicable to to a few things.

Blacklisting circumcision would also get rid of any of those posts where foreskin was being removed. I just wondered if there was a GoreLite tag that could also be appropriate.

wolftacos said:
Is there a lighter version of gore that could be used in the cases of circumcision and other similar procedures that include blood and cutting but not at the gore level? I don't know if such a tag exists but it could be applicable to to a few things.

Blacklisting circumcision would also get rid of any of those posts where foreskin was being removed. I just wondered if there was a GoreLite tag that could also be appropriate.

genital_torture

ImpidiDinkaDoo said:
genital_torture

Oh nice! Thank you!

hiekkapillu said:
Aliasing uncut to foreskin would still be a horrible idea, because searching for "uncut" should not bring up pictures of severed foreskins.

As was said in this thread, and the old thread 3 years ago, severed_foreskin is already a blacklistable tag, circumcision is already a blacklistable tag, just like severed anything or other specific terminology (castration, exposed_x and etc) theres literally no excuse or reason not to do it.

I get it, I get why the tag is supposed to be there. I'm not arguing to remove it I was answering another user and honestly the tag is stupid. It makes sense as to why people would think its unnecessary. Your argument is basically, if we alias it away people will search uncut and run into this stuff which ultimately is an incorrect result, I get that, but two things.

1: Im not actually arguing to get rid of uncut in the thread topic, its irrelevant to the issue. The argument i am making is that Uncut should imply foreskin and not be used on things that have foreskin in them automatically. So those implications simply need to be severed from the other direction, which are a relic of when they were the same tag.

2: Originally the problem still existed. Searching foreskin while it was the old way defaulted to uncut, which had uncut resulting in severed/mid circ foreskins and that ultimately breaks the argument youre even positing to begin with since thats the old way it was anyway. While I'm not personally currently advocating for it, it could be argued that getting rid of uncut as a tag since it is technically useless and redundant wouldnt hurt anyone because as long as blacklists are used, which is a site rule, no harm is done.