Implicating pegging → female_penetrating_male
Link to implication

Reason:

Because duh...

I still object to the existence of a pegging tag specific to that particular act and that particular gender combination. You can get basically the same results with various other tag combinations.

That said I also object to [gender]_penetrating_[gender] tags because you can get basically the same results with [gender]_penetrating [gender]/[gender].

Clawdragons said:
I still object to the existence of a pegging tag specific to that particular act and that particular gender combination. You can get basically the same results with various other tag combinations.

That said I also object to [gender]_penetrating_[gender] tags because you can get basically the same results with [gender]_penetrating [gender]/[gender].

But that's the whole POINT of having tags like that, is to combine the uses of two or more tags, so that when somebody's looking for pics depicting a specific situation, they can just use the one tag. This is because there's actually a limit on the number of tags you can search for at a given time, so being able to use fewer tags to find images of a specific combination of elements, is ideal. But having the singular-element tags, also, is still useful, because sometimes people want to find-say-images of a male being penetrated, but NOT ones where it's a female doing it.

In addition, searching for "female_penetrating male/female" doesn't JUST bring up images of pegging, it also brings up images of group activity where there's a female penetrating another female via strapon/feeldoe/what-have-you, and a separate female getting penetrated by a male. The only way to get images that ONLY have a male getting penetrated by a female who's using a toy, is to search specifically for pegging.

Clawdragons said:
That said I also object to [gender]_penetrating_[gender] tags because you can get basically the same results with [gender]_penetrating [gender]/[gender].

Basically but not quite. For example, a threesome with two males penetrating a female, and the two males kissing each other, would get male_penetrating male/male, but would not be male_penetrating_male. Or any instance of two males doing some non-penetrative act as another male penetrates a non-male. [gender1]_penetrating [gender2]_penetrated would get you closer, but that can still fail in some cases. Though even in that later case, the '[gender1]_penetrating_[gender2]' tag is useful to imply all the related '[gender1]_penetrating [gender2]_penetrated [gender1]/[gender2] [gender1] [gender2]' tags at once. This is particularly useful for uploading when it also works with body type (e.g. human_penetrating_anthro or feral_penetrating_feral implies its similarly related tags). Rather than having to remember to add a dozen tags for all that, I just need to add two and the rest come automatically.

Jacob said:
But that's the whole POINT of having tags like that, is to combine the uses of two or more tags, so that when somebody's looking for pics depicting a specific situation, they can just use the one tag.

Watsit said:
Similar stuff regarding tag specificity and false positives.

I'm aware that that's part of the reason for their existence, but at some point we have to recognize when the marginal utility of more specific tags isn't worth the additional problems caused by tag bloat.

Let me give you an extreme example. Say that someone tagged this image:

post #1954795

With faceless_human_male_penetrating_feral_green_female_dragon. I hope we can both agree this tag would be specific to the point of being useless. But the arguments that you're making for the [gender]_penetrating_[gender] tags still hold in this case. The existence of a faceless_human_male_penetrating_feral_green_female_dragon tag would allow you to combine multiple tags and allow you to search using a single search term. It would be the only way to avoid getting false-positives as a result of less-specific search terms.

My point is that none of your arguments are sufficient for the existence of a tag. A tag being more specific is not, by itself, a positive or negative thing. Reducing false positives is a positive thing, tag bloat is a negative thing. Therefore any tag, to justify its existence, ought to balance how much it works to reduce false positives compared to how much tag-bloat it creates.

In the case of something like [gender]_penetrating_[gender] tags, yes, they reduce false positives, but by an incredibly small amount, while at the same time adding a fair number of new tags.

I don't blanket-object to any new tags that increase specificity. I was the one who argued for the existence of [gender]_on_[form] tags, precisely because they reduced false positives massively (the rate was around 50% false positives), and as designed introduced as few new tags as possible.

Clawdragons said:
My point is that none of your arguments are sufficient for the existence of a tag.

I dunno, I really do think the implication tree it creates is rather helpful. Considering the tagging system is one of the stronger selling points of this site, something that can get you 4 or 5 useful tags out of 1 is quite beneficial. Less you have to keep in mind when adding tags, less prone to typos since you don't have to repeat yourself, less duplicate wording, and encouraging more people to use them would improve the overall quality and quantity of tags posts have (as it is, I see plenty of posts that just get [gender]/[gender] despite clear penetration; if uploaders and taggers started using [gender]_penetrating_[gender] for them instead instead, it would still get that tag but also [gender]_penetrating and [gender]_penetrated).

If it was possible to have multi-aliases so that x_penetrating_y gets replaced with x_penetrating, y_penetrated, and x/y (or x_on_y for form/body type), I could maybe get behind what you're saying, depending on how many false positives there ends up being. But I don't believe that's currently possible; the only way to do it is with implications, and that requires x_penetrating_y to be a valid non-aliased tag.

This discussion got complicated quickly.

- I really don't know why pegging is not gender neutral. What if people want other genders fucking other genders in the ass with a strapon?

If we're not willing to remove the gender aspect to it, then this implication makes sense.

Also to people naysaying things like <gender>_penetrating<gender>, please think of the taggers. Before these tags existed, we had to manually type

male_penetrating, male_penetrated, anthro_penetrating antho_penetrated

for every m/m penetration scene. Now we can just type

male_penetrating_male or m/p/m, anthro_penetrating_anthro or a/p/a

A lot easier for us to use tags that imply multiple different other tags.

TheVileOne said:
- I really don't know why pegging is not gender neutral. What if people want other genders fucking other genders in the ass with a strapon?

When the term was coined, it was specifically for referencing a male being anally penetrated by a female with a strap-on, because it was difficult for the adult public to fathom the idea of that kind of role-reversal in a straight relationship being a not-uncommon thing. In particular, the idea of a straight male liking to bottom. Using a strap-on for female-on-female or andromorph-on-male anal sex doesn't really hold the same meaning. That's how I understand it, anyway.

TheVileOne said:
I really don't know why pegging is not gender neutral.

Pegging isn't gender neutral because it's m/f femdom role-reversal. Instead of the vanilla 'male penetrating female', it's 'female penetrating male'.

I'm not aware of any term for gender neutral anal penetration with a strap-on. None for vaginal either. strap-on toying_partner anal seems to work well enough for a combo search.

Out there on the internet, pegging seems to be losing its original meaning, for good or for ill.

- Is it female/feminine penetrating another person?
- Is it male/masculine getting penetrated?
- Does it specifically involve a strapon or feeldoe?
- Is it specifically anal penetration?
- Or is it some of the above?

Ask 50 different people what it means and you'd probably get 50 different answers.

Personally I'd prefer keeping the definition as it is here on e621 and probably approving the implication suggetion. Makes it easier for my blacklist to keep functioning as I want it.

---

I don't know if it's a good tag to keep or expand, but I have seen strapon_sex around. Admins felt it needed some aliases and implications at least.