The tag implication #64868 cloacal_penis -> cloaca is pending approval.

Reason: cant have a cloacal penis without a cloaca.

If the cloaca is mostly or entirely obscured by the penis or a hand should it still be tagged?

regsmutt said:
If the cloaca is mostly or entirely obscured by the penis or a hand should it still be tagged?

I would say that similar to how we treat tags such as herm, the origin(cloacal opening or 'lips' of the cloaca) of the penis would have to be visible to be tagged as cloacal penis.

I did notice the reason why your asking, _{"If the creature in question is an accurately depicted feral animal that'd normally have a cloaca -- and it has an anatomically correct penis -- then this may be tagged even if the cloaca itself is obscured from the view."}
That bit very much should probably be changed, I am rather surprised that this bit that goes against TWYS was written by a former staff.

ryu_deacon said:
I would say that similar to how we treat tags such as herm, the origin(cloacal opening or 'lips' of the cloaca) of the penis would have to be visible to be tagged as cloacal penis.

I did notice the reason why your asking, _{"If the creature in question is an accurately depicted feral animal that'd normally have a cloaca -- and it has an anatomically correct penis -- then this may be tagged even if the cloaca itself is obscured from the view."}
That bit very much should probably be changed, I am rather surprised that this bit that goes against TWYS was written by a former staff.

so for example... if a post shows a penis, shows where an anus would be but its not there, while the area where a cloaca opening would be is obscured - or if its not and there isn't a cloaca, then the cloaca tags shouldn't be applied yea?

also if the cloaca is spread and you can see a separate anus within it, is it still tagged cloaca? if it is do we also include anus too? i remember seeing a diagram of an animal's cloaca - maybe a cetacean, and when the cloaca was spread you could see the anus was a separate orifice from the reproductive one.

dinbyy said:
also if the cloaca is spread and you can see a separate anus within it, is it still tagged cloaca? if it is do we also include anus too? i remember seeing a diagram of an animal's cloaca - maybe a cetacean, and when the cloaca was spread you could see the anus was a separate orifice from the reproductive one.

Yes, it's still tagged cloaca. That's how they work.

regsmutt said:
Yes, it's still tagged cloaca. That's how they work.

would anus also be applicable? in a similar fashion we also tag urethra when its visible. the wording on the cloaca wiki confuses me as it says if there's a separate anus it shouldn't be tagged as such.

dinbyy said:
would anus also be applicable? in a similar fashion we also tag urethra when its visible. the wording on the cloaca wiki confuses me as it says if there's a separate anus it shouldn't be tagged as such.

Yeah I would assume anus is also applicable. The anal opening is inside the cloaca the same way the urethra is inside a canine_pussy. The reproductive tract is still separate from the digestive tract, they just join up and open to the same hole on the outside. Like two rivers that join into a larger river that opens to the ocean.

regsmutt said:
Yeah I would assume anus is also applicable. The anal opening is inside the cloaca the same way the urethra is inside a canine_pussy. The reproductive tract is still separate from the digestive tract, they just join up and open to the same hole on the outside. Like two rivers that join into a larger river that opens to the ocean.

To use your river analogy, it's my understanding that anus only covers the joined river entering the ocean, not really the joining of the two rivers that comes before, so no, a separate anal opening within the cloaca should not be tagged as anus. For additional clarification a female's cloaca for example with visible separate openings within, would not get tagged with pussy(or vulva) however I would probably add the specific tag for the vaginal canal or cervix, granted anus has no such specificity for its internal bits. This might honestly need more feedback before people start adding anus to spread cloacae.

dinbyy said:
also if the cloaca is spread and you can see a separate anus within it, is it still tagged cloaca? if it is do we also include anus too? i remember seeing a diagram of an animal's cloaca - maybe a cetacean, and when the cloaca was spread you could see the anus was a separate orifice from the reproductive one.

oh, it seems like i was wrong on the cetacean bit. cetaceans do not have a cloaca, and while females do have the vaginal and anal orifices contained within whats referred to as a genital slit, it's not a cloaca. it seems i'll need to read up a bit more on actual cloacas to understand that kind of anatomy. im not sure where i picked up on female cetaceans having cloacas, but i guess i learned something new today.

ryu_deacon said:
To use your river analogy, it's my understanding that anus only covers the joined river entering the ocean, not really the joining of the two rivers that comes before, so no, a separate anal opening within the cloaca should not be tagged as anus. For additional clarification a female's cloaca for example with visible separate openings within, would not get tagged with pussy(or vulva) however I would probably add the specific tag for the vaginal canal or cervix, granted anus has no such specificity for its internal bits. This might honestly need more feedback before people start adding anus to spread cloacae.

I mean, yeah, there's not realistically an anus as it appears on mammals. But when has that ever stopped anyone?
post #601754

I don't think we need to either invent a new term or say stuff like this shouldn't be tagged. It looks like an anus and it was most likely intended to be an anus.