With the shota and loli tags long overdue for extermination, it's time to establish a tag replace their utility. Not all instances of young -rating:safe involve a young character being sexualized. This thread is about workshopping a tag to cover those instances.

A name

• nonsexualized_young - Makes sense, intuitive. Carries the implication that sexualization is the default, which I can see being offensive to some people. Doesn't exclude extreme romantic content. May have filter issues: post #387977
• unsexualized_young - Grammatically incorrect. "un" prefix implies the undoing of something rather than the lack of it.
• young_safe - My initial suggestion. Has the discoverability benefit of starting with the word "young". Inoffensive language. Doesn't include other types of explicit content such a violence.
• young_sfw - Slang-y but intuitive. Has the discoverability benefit of starting with the word "young". post #387978
• young_pure or young_innocent - Inoffensive. Possibly more vague than other options. Has the discoverability benefit of starting with the word "young". post #387978

Possible guidelines

Tag would allow:

• Young characters appearing in sequences, multi-images or comics which also contain explicit or questionable content.

post #4513896 post #3852551 post #1613781

• Young characters being incidentally exposed to nudity or sexual activity. (ex: in the background of public nudity or walking in on an adult)

post #3039053

• Young characters committing or being subject to nonsexual acts of violence.

post #4549308

• Young characters innocently engaged in other nonsexual questionable content such as vore.

post #809541

• Babies being born.

post #4465211

• Romantic activity between young characters of the same age.
• Young characters expressing romantic intent towards older characters.

Things that would disqualify this tag:

• Young characters involved in any sexual activity.
• Young character's genitals being visible or visibly defined through clothing.
• Young characters posed suggestively.
• Adults intentionally exposing young characters to suggestive or sexual activity.
• Exposed breasts on young characters.
• Young characters in contact with any genital fluids, sex toys or genitals directly or through clothing.
• young_on_* with an age difference between partners.
• older characters expressing attraction or romantic intent towards young characters.

Borderline or ambiguous scenarios
These need to be discussed.

• x-anuses and other nonsexual depictions of genitals on young feral characters. These are explicit by e6 standards, but few people would consider them sexual.

post #2248262

• Young characters showing metaphorical arousal.
• Intense kissing between young characters of the same age.
• Young characters being nude in art where the nudity is not implied to be casual.
• Fetish content with young characters as the focus. (hard to quantify)
• Live birth while the character giving birth is anally penetrated.
• Young characters being breastfed. And similar acts where a nude or exposed adult might be with a young character without sexual intent.

Relevant tags and searches:

live_birth -underage_pregnancy
adult_on_adult - Explicit images where a young character is present but only adults are having sex.
adult_focus - Explicit/questionable images where a young character is present but not the focus of the image.
Young tag minus automatic disqualifiers: young -rating:safe -loli -shota -young_penetrat* -young_finger* -young_fist* -young_rape* -exposure_to_minor -older_on_young -young_on_old -adult_*_young -adult_on_* -teenager_on_younger -young_intersex -young_*morph -young_*herm (also removes adult_on_adult, but those can be tagged separately)
Notes:
All intersex gender tags require visible genitals to be tagged, but young_intersex doesn't have all the applicable implications yet. topic #41724
adult_on_[AGE] and related tags also do not implicate older_on_young for some reason.
age_difference isn't very helpful as it often gets tagged regardless of if the characters are romantically or sexually involved.

Thread is a WIP. Will be adding links to other relevant threads and more image examples later.

I'm in favor of this, since blacklist entries support whitelisting addendum. (Which I usually use for "-fav:me" to make occasional exceptions to blacklisted stuff.)

I can see "young -nonsexualized_young -rating:s" being quite common on blacklists.

The only problem I have with this is that this term could be unintentionally blocked by online filters because of the word "sexualized" appearing in the term itself (see Scunthorpe problem on Wikipedia).

just spitballing ideas

young_pure
young_innocent
young_sfw

alien_fluff said:
The only problem I have with this is that this term could be unintentionally blocked by online filters because of the word "sexualized" appearing in the term itself (see Scunthorpe problem on Wikipedia).

So shall we use sexualised_young instead? It's easier since you can just alias loli and shota to it, rather than nuke them all and add nonsexualised_young to posts individually.

alien_fluff said:
The only problem I have with this is that this term could be unintentionally blocked by online filters because of the word "sexualized" appearing in the term itself (see Scunthorpe problem on Wikipedia).

Good to know! Didn't realize that was an issue. Fliphook's idea of young_sfw would solve this.

snpthecat said:
So shall we use sexualised_young instead? It's easier since you can just alias loli and shota to it, rather than nuke them all and add nonsexualised_young to posts individually.

The argument against this is that it would be impossible to tag EVERY instance of it. But I'm in favor of having both. Let people choose for themselves if they want to risk an insufficient or overly cautious blacklist.
Also, populating this nonsexualized_young tag would be nearly impossible if there were no opposite tag to sort against.

oopsitripped said:
The argument against this is that it would be impossible to tag EVERY instance of it. But I'm in favor of having both. Let people choose for themselves if they want to risk an insufficient or overly cautious blacklist.
Also, populating this nonsexualized_young tag would be nearly impossible if there were no opposite tag to sort against.

Shouldn't we avoid having tags for both it and it's negation? (I am aware of sound and no_sound, it's discussed over at topic #39694)

or how about youngling

a young person
: one that is young. especially : a young person or animal.

and young would be a preference like milfs, mature_*, aged_up/down

the young_sfw young_pure and young_innocent were already in oopsitripped opening statement

snpthecat said:
Shouldn't we avoid having tags for both it and it's negation? (I am aware of sound and no_sound, it's discussed over at topic #39694)

Ideally. Though I think this would be a valid exception considering porn of young characters is illegal in many places. Like with the sound/no_sound, one is for people who are looking for (thing) other is for people who need to be 100% sure (thing) isn't in the post.

I agree that a tag for sexualized young makes more intuitive sense, and would be easier to establish. But people tend to disagree due to the sheer amount of posts that would need to be tagged to ensure that it could be used as an effective blacklisting tool. The search in the op has 750 pages.

fliphook said:
or how about youngling

a young person
: one that is young. especially : a young person or animal.

and young would be a preference like milfs, mature_*, aged_up/down

the young_sfw young_pure and young_innocent were already in oopsitripped opening statement

Oh sorry, I added those suggestions them after your comment so they would be front and center. Will edit to make it more clear.

oopsitripped said:
Oh sorry, I added those suggestions them after your comment so they would be front and center. Will edit to make it more clear.

oh, ok i getcha

snpthecat said:
So shall we use sexualised_young instead? It's easier since you can just alias loli and shota to it, rather than nuke them all and add nonsexualised_young to posts individually.

oopsitripped said:

The argument against this is that it would be impossible to tag EVERY instance of it. But I'm in favor of having both. Let people choose for themselves if they want to risk an insufficient or overly cautious blacklist.
Also, populating this nonsexualized_young tag would be nearly impossible if there were no opposite tag to sort against.

"like clockwork"https://e621.net/forum_topics/34987 this topic is still so precarious

Sorry, I'm scratching my head as to the actual rationale behind having a nonsexualized_young tag.
Does the tag even adhere to adheres to TWYS? By default, we don't tag what we don't see.
I also struggle to see how this is going to encourage people to use this tag, with the long list of inclusion/exclusion criteria being set.

The title of this thread also just screams "feral_art", another similar tag that was removed due to being redundant (see topic #40486).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Sorry, I'm scratching my head as to the actual rationale behind having a nonsexualized_young tag.
Does the tag even adhere to adheres to TWYS? By default, we don't tag what we don't see.
I also struggle to see how this is going to encourage people to use this tag, with the long list of inclusion/exclusion criteria being set.

The title of this thread also just screams "feral_art", another similar tag that was removed due to being redundant (see topic #40486).

I don't disagree that this whole thing is a clunky solution.
The main rationale is because the idea of the opposite tag has been shot down thus far for being too common/redundant to bother with, despite having demand. "If it's rated questionable/explicit it's probably sexual and we don't bother tagging the default." Thus came the idea of tagging the exceptions.
We need a tag to cover the blacklist utility of loli/shota if they're going to get axed.

List of potential inclusions/exclusions are only my suggestions presented for discussion, not intended to be a wiki. Input on how to more concisely phrase things would be appreciated.

thegreatwolfgang said:
By default, we don't tag what we don't see.

topless, bottomless, nude

I don't really care for this discussion, so might not read any replies, but thought I'd drop my opinion here after a quick glance over it: wouldn't the inverse, sexualized_young, make much more sense?

• Using nonsexualized_young would effectively be saying that the default state of young is sexualized, and the non-sexualized images are the rare exception (maybe true, who knows with e621)
• I don't think it's too unreasonable to have the tag that describes the thing (young) and then another tag for when it's used in a sexualized way (feet and foot_fetish, et al.)
• It could be implied by existing tags that definitely imply a sexualized young character, such as young_penetrated, adult_on_young, etc. The nonsexualized variant would not be able to be implied by anything.

sipothac said:
topless, bottomless, nude

Those are all in relation to clothing, with various tags in place for different stages of undress. In addition, it is also tied to social concepts (i.e., whether one is supposed to/is capable of being clothed).
It is a whole can of worms if you want to question the validity of TWYS for those tags, so I wouldn't be going into it.

Here, we are talking about the absence of sex and other sexual activities with a very specific provision for young.
I personally don't feel that there is need for a tag for nonsexualised scenarios, since it gives the impression that the majority of young would be sexualised anyways.

So is there anyone not in favor of a young_sexualized tag then? Feels like opinions have shifted since this was last brought up. I'm not complaining though, just glad this is going somewhere.

oopsitripped said:
So is there anyone not in favor of a young_sexualized tag then? Feels like opinions have shifted since this was last brought up. I'm not complaining though, just glad this is going somewhere.

I'm currently not in favour of getting rid of the existing loli and shota tags, but simultaneously I do not see a problem with creating a tag that is those tags' inverse. it's my current opinion that there would be enough utility for having tags for both possible states.

that stance may change with the actual adoption of the new tag, but for now that's where I stand.

alien_fluff said:
The only problem I have with this is that this term could be unintentionally blocked by online filters because of the word "sexualized" appearing in the term itself (see Scunthorpe problem on Wikipedia).

There are hundreds of tags with the word "sex" in it, and many more that are just as, if not more sexually charged. Considering the content primarily showcased on the site, it's unavoidable.

fluffermutt said:
There are hundreds of tags with the word "sex" in it, and many more that are just as, if not more sexually charged. Considering the content primarily showcased on the site, it's unavoidable.

We have e926 to consider, too. If the word "sex" is in a tag for a safe-rated post, then an online filter could block both the e621 and the e926 pages for that post.

alien_fluff said:
We have e926 to consider, too. If the word "sex" is in a tag for a safe-rated post, then an online filter could block both the e621 and the e926 pages for that post.

we could say that it's to only be applied to rating:q/e posts since with rating:s posts non-sexualized is already the default.

more spitballs

minors

faucet said:

• Using nonsexualized_young would effectively be saying that the default state of young is sexualized, and the non-sexualized images are the rare exception

(using page 1 of search young -rating:safe order:random, page size = 250 items):

• sexual 232 (92.8%)
• neutral (nude but not suggestive) 4 (1.6%)
• ambiguous (maybe sexual, not clearly so) 7 (2.8%)
• other (gore, multi_scene, other characters are cause of non-safe rating, etc) 7 (2.8%)

Any ambiguity in interpretation was resolved in favor of the latter 3 categories (ie. maybe someone else would choose to put more items in the 'sexual' category and less in the latter 3)

Extrapolating from the above stats onto the total post counts of young -rating:safe:

• total number of posts : ~193200 posts (derived using RE621 estimates, combining the count for young -rating:safe age:0_days..8_years and young -rating:safe age:8_years..99_years (necessary because you hit the page limit otherwise)
• est. needed taggings of "sexualized_young" if that is made the official tag: 179290
• est. needed taggings of "nonsexualized_young" if that is made the official tag: 13911
• if you wanted to preserve loli and shota while also adding nonsexualized_young, that would require checking literally every post in the young -rating:safe -loli -shota search (118.4k items presently) as far as I can see.
• Accepting instead the converse set (loli, shota, sexualized_young) obviously isn't a sensible option, since that would just be redundant.

EDIT: I'm not sure if extrapolating onto the search young -rating:safe -loli -shota would be strictly correct here, but if that was the more correct option, then the figures for required taggings would instead come out to

• ~ taggings of 'sexualized_young' if that was chosen: 109876
• ~ taggings of 'nonsexualized_young' if that was chosen: 8525

fliphook said:
more spitballs

minors

The term minor is tied to legal terminology of someone below the age of majority, or legal adulthood.
Since cub is no longer a tag, it would be inappropriate to call a young animal as being a "minor".
In addition, having a sexualised tag with that word will most definitely draw in outside attention for the site (especially since Google indexes wiki pages).

Better to stick with young.

thegreatwolfgang said:

Better to stick with young.

i think i was thinking more along the lines of young=sfw, minor=nsfw as all kids would be considered young until something bad happens wherein the legal terminology is needed

but the outside attention is also not a good thing

fliphook said:
... until something bad happens wherein the legal terminology is needed

but the outside attention is also not a good thing

Yeah no, that one is just begging for trouble.
Artwork should in no way be categorised on legality, especially since a large number of people seem to not understand the difference between fiction and real-life.

oh but here's a thought, due to how popular pokemon is to kids and furries, all artwork with pokemon in rule34.paheal.net are referred to as 'porkyman.' searching pokemon within the sight is redirected to porkyman

google searches for pokemon rule34 has rule34.xxx show up first, while 'paheal' will be seen further down the list as 'porkyman' so maybe min0rs or my-nurse we don't have to use official terms or spellings, we could just use something only this site uses for the tag as long as we have it defined in the wiki we could use whatever slang term we'd like

I object to a specific tag for "unsexualized_whatever" tags because it assumes the opposite is the default. And while that may be technically true in terms of pure numbers, we don't have an "unsexualized_tentacles" tag even though the vast, VAST majority of tentacle posts are sexual, for example. Not to mention that e926 uses the same tags as we do and it would be weird to have a tag with a name like that all over what's supposed to be a SFW site.

As for the amount of work involved in retagging, clearly we're not shying away from massive retagging projects these days (glances over at the pussy tag thread), and if anything having them all going at once might save some time.

errorist said:
I object to a specific tag for "unsexualized_whatever" tags because it assumes the opposite is the default. And while that may be technically true in terms of pure numbers, we don't have an "unsexualized_tentacles" tag even though the vast, VAST majority of tentacle posts are sexual, for example.

the ideology of tagging has been shifting away from "don't tag the defaults" pretty significantly. personally, I think having tags for all mutually exclusive states, even boolean (true/false) states, can be useful.

errorist said:
Not to mention that e926 uses the same tags as we do and it would be weird to have a tag with a name like that all over what's supposed to be a SFW site.

as I stated earlier we could have it only apply to rating:e or rating:q and not rating:s posts. it does seem like it'd be redundant to tag every single safe rated post containing a young character with the tag.

the tag's definition could be something to the effect of:

(and it'd probably have to be meta category since it's applying to the entire post rather than individual characters.)

While it's generally true that we avoid tagging "defaults", or the thing that's true most of the time, and instead tag when it's different from the expected, I'm falling on the side of not having a "nonsexualized_young" tag. For reasons like this:

faucet said:

• [sexualized_young] could be implied by existing tags that definitely imply a sexualized young character, such as young_penetrated, adult_on_young, etc. The nonsexualized variant would not be able to be implied by anything.

alien_fluff said:
We have e926 to consider, too. If the word "sex" is in a tag for a safe-rated post, then an online filter could block both the e621 and the e926 pages for that post.

errorist said:
Not to mention that e926 uses the same tags as we do and it would be weird to have a tag with a name like that all over what's supposed to be a SFW site.

And even though there are instances of young -rating:s where the young character isn't suggestive or being sexualized, I'm not sure it's enough to warrant a nonsexualized_young tag, which probably will end up missing on a number of posts anyway, in part because nothing can imply it (like the various young_on_* and *_on_young tags), or be aliased to it (like loli and shota), resulting in the same effect. And having a tag worded like "nonsexualized" pop up on e926 would be out of place (and itself be the norm there). There will also be vague edge cases of whether the young character is being sexualized or not, which will be more contentious to tag unsexualized_young on a non-Safe post for those cases than sexualized_young, I feel.

watsit said:
And having a tag worded like "nonsexualized" pop up on e926 would be out of place (and itself be the norm there).

This would only be on questionable/explicit posts, so it wouldn't show up on e926 anyway.

Also I think everyone agrees that nonsexualized_young is not a great tag name, part of this thread was supposed to be workshopping a better name, but it seems people are getting really hung up on the wording of the placeholder.

Tag name isn't settled and it would only apply to explicit or questionable rated posts, so the tag appearing on e926 isn't a concern. And like pleaseletmein said, the tag name isn't decided on. I'm leaning towards young_sfw or young_safe, personally.

sipothac said:
the tag's definition could be something to the effect of:

a tag for posts containing sexual or suggestive situations as well as young character(s) where said young characters are in no way involved in said sexual/suggestive situations.

I like this definition a lot. I would replace the "sexual or suggestive" at the beginning with the ratings, since this would also apply to posts that are not sexual or suggestive but still rated q/e.
Does the definition need to be any more granular to work?

& young_sfw both sound like they'll be misunderstood in the same way safe & sfw were, and later invalidated. Without knowing the definition, it just sounds like young on rating:s posts.