• Do we really need those tags?

anthro_penetrating_female, anthro_penetrating_male, anthro_penetrating_ambiguous, etc.
Also vice versa. male_penetrating_anthro, male_penetrating_feral, male_penetrating_humanoid, etc.
...
Fisting and fingering doesn't exist for this combo yet, but could be included to a BUR.

• Mixing gender and body form is unnecessary, in my opinion. We can search for "male_penetrating anthro_penetrated" and boom, you got what you are searching for. Even if you search for "male_penetrating anthro_penetrated group", the chance to find what you want is very high. I went through the first 150 posts for this search and found exactly what I have expected.

And I have seen it in the forum a couple of times now, that others have similar thoughts about it. ^{_{(I could say:"I couldn't find it, but actually I am to lazy to search for it")}}

• Kinda useful, though, would keep it.

male_on_anthro, male_on_feral, male_on_humanoid, male_on_taur are a little different. If you search for "male feral sex group" you can get more false posts. because male and feral can be applied to a single character, or a background character.

What are your thoughts about it? Create a BUR and aliasing them away, or imply the fitting tags? ^{(I pleat for aliasing it away)}

dubsthefox said:

• Do we really need those tags?

anthro_penetrating_female, anthro_penetrating_male, anthro_penetrating_ambiguous, etc.
Also vice versa. male_penetrating_anthro, male_penetrating_feral, male_penetrating_humanoid, etc.
...
Fisting and fingering doesn't exist for this combo yet, but could be included to a BUR.

• Mixing gender and body form is unnecessary, in my opinion. We can search for "male_penetrating anthro_penetrated" and boom, you got what you are searching for. Even if you search for "male_penetrating anthro_penetrated group", the chance to find what you want is very high. I went through the first 150 posts for this search and found exactly what I have expected.

Those tags are supposed to be used for when an it's a mixed-form pairing. So male_penetrating_anthro for example is for a non-anthro male penetrating an anthro of any sex. "male_penetrating anthro_penetrated" isn't anywhere close to matching that. "male_on_anthro anthro_penetrated" would be closer.

dubsthefox said:
What are your thoughts about it? Create a BUR and aliasing them away, or imply the fitting tags? ^{(I pleat for aliasing it away)}

I suppose I'd be fine with aliasing them away, as long as it's to the matching *_on_* tags. e.g. anthro_penetrating_female -> female_on_anthro. Such a post should also have the appropriate <sex>_penetrating_<sex> and <form>_penetrating_<form> tags, so the appropriate *_penetrating and *_penetrated tags for sex and form should still be there.

I hope you aren't thinking about aliasing away the human_penetrating and human_penetrated tags? Those are extremely useful.

watsit said:
So male_penetrating_anthro for example is for a non-anthro male penetrating an anthro of any sex.

After reading the wiki, it makes much more sense :D I was just remembering that someone was complaining about it. And without reading the wiki, it looked like the usual x_penetratin_x tags, to me.

thirtyeight said:
I hope you aren't thinking about aliasing away the human_penetrating and human_penetrated tags?...

I mean... I am a little lost some times... But I am not completely insane

dubsthefox said:
I mean... I am a little lost some times... But I am not completely insane

That's good, I always freak out when it looks like someone is discussing removing it. Finding Human/Anthro M/M content where the human tops is incredibly difficult and that tag makes it so much easier.