I've noticed that the user "Unevener" seems to have gone on a spree about 11 days ago of tagging a lot of posts which were previously tagged "sleep_sex" as "rape" and "forced"; see their tag history here: https://e621.net/post_versions?lr=428861&page=2&search%5Bupdater_id%5D=428861

I could understand if this was "questionable_consent" (it's non-consensual by default, and a little dubious if arranged beforehand), but this seems pretty overboard to me; a number of the posts they've tagged feature explicit consent (e.g. https://e621.net/posts/4340680, https://e621.net/posts/4274395), leading to the strange situation of a post being tagged both "consent" and "rape" at the same time.

I've reverted the two examples I posted above but I figured I should probably ask the community before doing any more.

awesometoaster said:
I could understand if this was "questionable_consent" (it's non-consensual by default, and a little dubious if arranged beforehand), but this seems pretty overboard to me; a number of the posts they've tagged feature explicit consent (e.g. https://e621.net/posts/4340680, https://e621.net/posts/4274395), leading to the strange situation of a post being tagged both "consent" and "rape" at the same time.

I wouldn't even say they're sleep_sex, since there isn't any sex going on.

Also consent doesn't seem like a proper tag. Perhaps they should be explicitly_stated_consent, but actions (sexual or not) are assumed consensual unless there's visible reason to doubt it.

In either case, since a pained expression or being grabbed during sex isn't usually enough for questionable_consent or rape on its own, I don't think sleeping should be either without something more, IMO.

watsit said:
I wouldn't even say they're sleep_sex, since there isn't any sex going on.

Also consent doesn't seem like a proper tag. Perhaps they should be explicitly_stated_consent, but actions (sexual or not) are assumed consensual unless there's visible reason to doubt it.

In either case, since a pained expression or being grabbed during sex isn't usually enough for questionable_consent or rape on its own, I don't think sleeping should be either without something more, IMO.

I thought the rape tag was much more broad, the wiki explicitly states the resistance doesn't have to be overt:

Resistance doesn't have to be constant or overt

implying that it's much more of a broad tag than an explicitly visual tag.

From my understanding under TWYS, neither text nor outer panel (for comics) knowledge applies, so it makes sense that, at best under TWYS, sleep_sex would have to be questionable_consent, as there's no way to really know the consent of the sleeping person under TWYS guidelines.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
I thought the rape tag was much more broad, the wiki explicitly states the resistance doesn't have to be overt:
implying that it's much more of a broad tag than an explicitly visual tag.

It still needs some visual indication, else it wouldn't be TWYS.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
From my understanding under TWYS, neither text nor outer panel (for comics) knowledge applies, so it makes sense that, at best under TWYS, sleep_sex would have to be questionable_consent, as there's no way to really know the consent of the sleeping person under TWYS guidelines.

Not knowing doesn't automatically make it questionable. Consent is assumed by default, and the questionable consent tag needs something visual to overcome the assumption, beyond sex happening without explicit consent. Most images here don't have any indication of consent, with plenty of facial expressions, actions, and scenarios that can be taken either way.
post #4399000 post #4407966 post #4376367 post #4373527

If BDSM (or being bound in general) isn't enough to question consent by default, I don't think sleeping should either.
post #4411037 post #4410780 post #4410609 post #4410348

definitelynotafurry4 said:
From my understanding under TWYS, neither text nor outer panel (for comics) knowledge applies, so it makes sense that, at best under TWYS, sleep_sex would have to be questionable_consent, as there's no way to really know the consent of the sleeping person under TWYS guidelines.

most general tags are exclusively for tagging the visuals of a post, yes.
but there are a few tags that are used to describe the content of text/dialogue contained within the image, like the above example and its opposite, explicitly_stated_nonconsent and stuff like profanity.
there's also a scant few "themes"-type tags that should be okay to tag off of either visual or textual context, infidelity and rape. although that last one might be a bit controversial, but like, in my opinion for blacklisting purposes it'd make sense for it to work like that.

watsit said:
Not knowing doesn't automatically make it questionable. Consent is assumed by default, and the questionable_consent tag needs something visual to overcome the assumption.

For questionable_consent to be a useful tag, the barrier must be rather low; otherwise, it's just rape. It's such an important tag for blacklisting. It functions as almost a parent tag to a whole group of tags that are common rape tropes, and it has to for blacklisting to work properly. sleep_sex is very commonly rape by artist intent, but it's also quite common for it to not be sufficient for rape by TWYS.

Most posts in sleep_sex rape probably don't qualify for rape by TWYS. They also aren't posts I'd want to come across when looking for consensual sex. questionable_consent is a decent middle ground. If anything, it should be applied more, such as most of those BDSM examples.

scth said:
For questionable_consent to be a useful tag, the barrier must be rather low

Not too low, else it would end up tagged on a lot of posts that people wouldn't expect. Take the examples in my last post, for example; should any of those be tagged questionable_consent? The more posts it ends up on because it technically fits with similar posts, the less useful it would be.

scth said:
otherwise, it's just rape.

Questionable consent is its own thing, when there's reason to doubt consent but there's no indication of non-consent. It's not/shouldn't be treated like rape-lite.

You do kinda need to be conscious to be able to properly consent but I'm not sure if it really needs to be tagged as rape, since you can just blacklist sleep_sex if someone doesn't want to see it.

themasterpotato said:
You do kinda need to be conscious to be able to properly consent but I'm not sure if it really needs to be tagged as rape, since you can just blacklist sleep_sex if someone doesn't want to see it.

Agreed, also here's a couple examples of explicitly stated consensual sleep sex
post #2438439 post #2499468

cloudpie said:
Agreed, also here's a couple examples of explicitly stated consensual sleep sex

Here's also an example where the sleeping character is the "initiator".
post #4416045

watsit said:
Here's also an example where the sleeping character is the "initiator".
post #4416045

If the sleeping character is the initiating one, they definitely aren't consenting.

scth said:
If the sleeping character is the initiating one, they definitely aren't consenting.

We're talking character intent/desires, not what constitutes legal consent. A character that has sex under their own will and power is considered consenting as they're not being coerced, tricked, or forced into it. If we were to go the legal consent route, images like
post #4415669 post #4415661 post #4402693
would be tagged rape for having sex while under the influence (despite the characters appearing completely fine with it), along with many young and feral posts.

watsit said:
We're talking character intent/desires, not what constitutes legal consent. A character that has sex under their own will and power is considered consenting as they're not being coerced, tricked, or forced into it. If we were to go the legal consent route, images like
post #4415669 post #4415661 post #4402693
would be tagged rape for having sex while under the influence (despite the characters appearing completely fine with it), along with many young and feral posts.

And all bestiality posts, and all necrophilia posts.

watsit said:
We're talking character intent/desires, not what constitutes legal consent.

Yeah the issue is from a still picture, under TWYS guidelines, it is almost never possible to understand desires of a sleeping character.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
Yeah the issue is from a still picture, under TWYS guidelines, it is almost never possible to understand desires of a sleeping character.

Or many characters in general really, be they faceless, bound, grabbed, etc. Which is why consent is assumed by default, else many if not most Explicit posts would be questionable_consent or rape as it's almost never possible to know how a character feels about what's happening.

watsit said:
Or many characters in general really, be they faceless, bound, grabbed, etc. Which is why consent is assumed by default, else many if not most Explicit posts would be questionable_consent or rape as it's almost never possible to know how a character feels about what's happening.

Agreeing with you here in your statement that it's nearly impossible to know how a character feels with TWYS.
Opposite of your example can be true as well. Images where a character is, according to TWYS, very clearly getting raped could very well be consensual with some sort of rape play fetish, or just overblown for roleplay reasons. TWYS is a very fuzzy policy when it comes to consent imo, considering the most popular form of nonconsent in art is characters saying stuff like "No!" and "Please stop!".

Hell, sometimes I see posts with the rape tag that without context of the tag I could very well assume was just rough sex or BDSM, since other forms of implied nonconsent [struggling, tears, drunkenness, etc] are also very present in posts not tagged with rape.
tears -forced -questionable_consent rating:e - 171 pages of results!
post #4378312 post #4376876

struggling -forced -questionable_consent rating:e - 8 pages of results
post #4294670 post #4388464

On the topic of the original post, I imagine it'd be reasonable to at least revert all additions of the rape tag on sleep_sex posts where there is explicitly stated consent. The tag itself becomes less useful to people both searching for and blacklisting it if there's a bunch of images in there where people are specifically having a good time and wanting it to happen. It'd make more sense to add questionable_consent to sleep sex posts that aren't explicitly consensual between both parties beforehand[and sometimes even during, based on reactions of the sleeping character], but outright determining it as rape regardless of character intent is unhelpful at best and tag abuse/vandalism at worst.

Considering the site's policies of anthro/human on feral content, as well as other content that is legally considered statutory rape in the real world, such as college student/teacher relationships or prisoner/prison guard relationships... Applying legal logic to explicit posts - instead of character intent logic - would mean tens of thousands of posts would be automatically implied to be rape, which would make the tag near useless. With that in mind, sleep_sex should not automatically imply nonconsent in the same way anthro on feral (and similar) and drunk sex do not. It'd be more helpful for the person who is adding all these nonconsent tags to sleep_sex posts to just blacklist the sleep_sex tag, since this seems to be reoccurring.