The tag implication #61297 girly_dominant -> dominant_male is pending approval.

Reason: From the girly wiki:

A male bodied character with a feminine personality, clothing, and sometimes body type (sans breasts of course).

The tag is only to be used on gender norm breaking male bodied (male, maleherm, and andromorph) characters they apply to. Never use the girly tag for ambiguous_gender, female, herm, or gynomorph characters.

From the dominant_male wiki:

Posts featuring a male character acting as the one dominating within a domination scenario.

Thus, follows that an image containing a girly character acting as the dominant will by definition contain a male character acting as such.

This shouldn't break the existing dominant_gender structure. As seen in dominant_female, dominant_male and dominant_intersex.

If anything it'd be dominant_girly, but getting that to be a tag (along with other girly-esque tags) is going to be hard work.

This implication is invalid on multiple accounts.

• We use dominant_x, not x_dominant.
• girly contains male, andromorph, and maleherm, thus this cannot imply dominant_male.
• Girly is not a form, gender, or age. We don't do these subtags outside of that.

Aside from the male issue, the choice of "dominant" here makes this easy to misuse. Domination is not about penetrative sex roles, but is often mistagged as such. And I wager most people wanting a tag like this are actually interested in something more like girly_penetrating. Keeping girly_dominant/dominant_girly would be a recipe for a huge number of mistags, causing posts to get tagged for domination/dominant characters when they're simply having sex. Having to correct this would take a lot of unnecessary effort and deal with people complaining that girly_dominant keeps getting removed from non-domination posts, because they want it to be a replacement for girly_penetrating.

If what you're looking for is girly_penetrating, I'd still suggest aliasing away girly_dominant/dominant_girly as it's a separate activity with more limited scope, and ask for girly_penetrating to be un-invalidated instead.

The problem is that it's a worthwhile tag to have (although the syntax should be inverted), girly male characters being dominant are uncommon and people are going to want to seek that content out. I think that girly_penetrating ought to be revalidated as well, because there's a clear use case for the tag, especially in male/male content where there's a masculine male character being penetrated by a feminine male character.

+1 for girly_dom, it mirrors muscular_dom. Girly is being used an adjective, not a noun. (yes we might get rid of the girly tag one day, but right now we DO have the girly tag. if something happens to it, we'll revisit this tag)

I also think a girly penetrating tag would be useful but I do understand the concerns with it. I don't understand the issue for girly_dom though since we already have muscular_dom :P

wandering_spaniel said:
I also think a girly penetrating tag would be useful but I do understand the concerns with it. I don't understand the issue for girly_dom though since we already have muscular_dom :P

Too easy to mistag, especially without girly_penetrating. Real girly dominant situations would be quite rare, which I understand is part of its appeal, but that also means it wouldn't be used often if used correctly, reducing its utility. It would easily get flooded with girly_penetrating without domination and just be another tag for the same thing. Looking at girly_dominant right now, and I'd say a good half of them shouldn't have the tag, either due do not being domination, not being girly, or being dialog-based.

watsit said:
Too easy to mistag, especially without girly_penetrating.

...Couldn't the same be said for all dom and sub tags though? They all get mistagged that way pretty often don't they?

wandering_spaniel said:
...Couldn't the same be said for all dom and sub tags though? They all get mistagged that way pretty often don't they?

Yes, so the fewer the better. Particularly if it doesn't fit the usual gender, form, or age categories, and would have limited valid uses.

watsit said:
Too easy to mistag, especially without girly_penetrating. Real girly dominant situations would be quite rare, which I understand is part of its appeal, but that also means it wouldn't be used often if used correctly, reducing its utility. It would easily get flooded with girly_penetrating without domination and just be another tag for the same thing. Looking at girly_dominant right now, and I'd say a good half of them shouldn't have the tag, either due do not being domination, not being girly, or being dialog-based.

"Fey_Penetrating"
"Fey_Dominant"

fey normally means effeminate, but has the historical roots where it may not be replaced at a later date. It's not frequently used, but it won't be easily confused with other tags.

viewer202020 said:
"Fey_Penetrating"
"Fey_Dominant"

fey normally means effeminate, but has the historical roots where it may not be replaced at a later date. It's not frequently used, but it won't be easily confused with other tags.

Watsit's issue wasn't with the word girly, just that people will mix up dominant and penetrating, but that's a wider issue, really.

(Also using "fey" to mean "girly" on a site that allows actual fairies isn't a good idea)