In any particular watersports image, who is the one doing the peeing/urination? Perhaps someone only wants to see guys peeing, or only wants to see women peeing. Maybe only intersex peeing! We have gender_penetrating and gender_penetrated tags, so I'm proposing we add watersports equivalent tags, gender_peeing and gender_peed_on. There are already a handful of images tagged with gender_peeing_on_gender, but in my opinion that's too specific, or at least not the optimal tagging method.

Does this sound like a good idea? If so, would anyone be interested in helping with that tagging project? (11k watersports images at the moment, not all involving the actual act of peeing, but still a substantial amount of images to tag.)

Also, related, I recently made a thread (topic #36560) in the Alias/Implication section about the terminology we used for bathroom functions, specifically peeing, and how it's a bit inconsistent. There were also two other threads with relevant discussion linked (topic #28231 & topic #28493) but from what I gathered I don't think the terminology is going to be changed anytime soon.

I'd be for these changes, might help with it too if it gets implemented.

ceti said:
I'd be for these changes, might help with it too if it gets implemented.

Dope, that would be very appreciated

Maybe I should make a separate thread for this, but while were at it, should we do the same for rimming and fingering (male_rimming, female_fingered, etc.)? There are already some <gender>_<rimming/fingering>_<gender> tags with a bit of use, but they lack any implications. But in parallel with what TrevorTheYeen proposed for these watersports tags, we might want to avoid <gender>_<rimming/fingering>_<gender> and limit ourselves to <gender>_<rimming/rimmed/fingering/fingered> instead.

crocogator said:
Maybe I should make a separate thread for this, but while were at it, should we do the same for rimming and fingering (male_rimming, female_fingered, etc.)? There are already some <gender>_<rimming/fingering>_<gender> tags with a bit of use, but they lack any implications. But in parallel with what TrevorTheYeen proposed for these watersports tags, we might want to avoid <gender>_<rimming/fingering>_<gender> and limit ourselves to <gender>_<rimming/rimmed/fingering/fingered> instead.

I do think that would be better as it's own topic, it would be able to get more visibility and discussion.

But yeah, we're on the same page when it comes to the tags! We have 6 gender tags, including ambiguous_gender as technically our 7th.
Which means we'd have 7*7(49) tags if we went with gender_action_gender, as opposed to just 7*2 (14) tags if they were just gender_giving_action and gender_receiving_action

trevortheyeen said:
I do think that would be better as it's own topic, it would be able to get more visibility and discussion.

But yeah, we're on the same page when it comes to the tags! We have 6 gender tags, including ambiguous_gender as technically our 7th.
Which means we'd have 7⁷ (49) tags if we went with gender_action_gender, as opposed to just 7² (14) tags if they were just gender_giving_action and gender_receiving_action

uh... 7^7 (823543) is not 49, and 7^2 (49) is not 14. i think you mean 7*7 and 7*2, but yeah, i agree, we should have those tags

cutefox123 said:
uh... 7^7 (823543) is not 49, and 7^2 (49) is not 14. i think you mean 7*7 and 7*2, but yeah, i agree, we should have those tags

I'm literally braindead. Yes that's exactly what I meant, yikes. I should go to sleep lmfao

So should we start using these tags?

+1 this

I've starting tagging male_peeing. Question: Should this tag be used for when someone is wetting themselves?

Made a wiki entry for male_peeing and female_peeing.

ceti said:
I've starting tagging male_peeing. Question: Should this tag be used for when someone is wetting themselves?

Sorry for late response. Personally, I think yes it should.

ceti said:
Made a wiki entry for male_peeing and female_peeing.

Amazing, thank you!

The bulk update request #3795 has been rejected.

create implication male_peeing (2699) -> peeing (16907)
create implication male_peeing (2699) -> male (2292445)
create implication female_peeing (2157) -> peeing (16907)
create implication female_peeing (2157) -> female (2367992)
create implication intersex_peeing (219) -> peeing (16907)
create implication intersex_peeing (219) -> intersex (223861)
create implication andromorph_peeing (62) -> intersex_peeing (219)
create implication andromorph_peeing (62) -> andromorph (20242)
create implication gynomorph_peeing (115) -> intersex_peeing (219)
create implication gynomorph_peeing (115) -> gynomorph (174980)
create implication herm_peeing (32) -> intersex_peeing (219)
create implication herm_peeing (32) -> herm (25030)
create implication maleherm_peeing (8) -> intersex_peeing (219)
create implication maleherm_peeing (8) -> maleherm (3936)

Reason: Let's get some implications in place too, following *_penetrated as a basis

EDIT: The bulk update request #3795 (forum #353380) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

I brought up female_peeing to 1.1k and male_peeing to 2.2k. Images "score:100..10000 peeing -male_peeing -female_peeing -intersex" should be close to perfectly tagged.

Problems I came across:

1. In penetration positions it's hard to tell who's peeing sometimes; left those untagged
2. With diapers it's often hard to tell if they're actually in the process of peeing, so those are left untagged
3. Ambiguous off-screen urine streams are left untagged
4. Some gifs are very long and I didn't go through all of them to figure out the details

I'll probably stop here with this project.

Things left to be done:

1. Someone needs to go through non-male and non-female images and tag those appropriately.
2. Someone needs to start tagging male_peed_on and female_peed_on.

The bulk update request #3795 (forum #353380) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Rejection reason is at topic #36869. In summary, to mitigate combinatorial explosion, the mods will be taking a different approach.

The bulk update request #6838 is active.

create implication male_peeing (2699) -> peeing (16907)
create implication male_peeing (2699) -> male (2292445)
create implication female_peeing (2157) -> peeing (16907)
create implication female_peeing (2157) -> female (2367992)
create implication intersex_peeing (219) -> peeing (16907)
create implication intersex_peeing (219) -> intersex (223861)
create implication andromorph_peeing (62) -> intersex_peeing (219)
create implication andromorph_peeing (62) -> andromorph (20242)
create implication gynomorph_peeing (115) -> intersex_peeing (219)
create implication gynomorph_peeing (115) -> gynomorph (174980)
create implication herm_peeing (32) -> intersex_peeing (219)
create implication herm_peeing (32) -> herm (25030)
create implication maleherm_peeing (8) -> intersex_peeing (219)
create implication maleherm_peeing (8) -> maleherm (3936)

Reason: I feel this was incorrectly rejected. It's not of the form X_verbing_Y, and carries some useful information, so I don't think it should be aliased away.

Are we going to keep fe/male_peed_on? If so, they should have implications to the gender, and peeing_on_another

EDIT: The bulk update request #6838 (forum #393216) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6838 (forum #393216) has been approved by @slyroon.