The bulk update request #10073 is pending approval.

create alias virgin (2057) -> virgin_(lore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
change category virgin_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing
create alias defloration (1445) -> defloration_(lore) (0) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
change category defloration_(lore) (0) -> lore # missing

Reason: Virginity and defloration are impossible to determine purely visually (even a broken hymen is not definitive), making these tags outside the scope of TWYS.

For prior discussion, see topic #23515.

BTR from topic #46451 and the active aliases on defloration
Some prior discussion in topic #45636

Not what lore tags are for, imo

wandering_spaniel said:
Not what lore tags are for, imo

Can you elaborate?

beholding said:
Can you elaborate?

Lore (and meta) category is mostly vibes based. It's not clearly defined, but my opinion of the category is that
Lore is used to label things which are physically not twys or things twys get wrong, about the characters in the post.

beholding said:
Can you elaborate?

I think it's mostly just because the lore category feels to have some amount of prestige behind it, the stuff that gets put in there generally has to feel important or even integral to a character's identity.

also, the relevancy of a character's virginity status feels like it'd only matter if it's made clear by the post itself and otherwise it seems like it'd be kind of weird to tag it. and if it's already made clear by the contents of the post it'd be fine to have it as a general tag.

beholding said:
Can you elaborate?

Lore is kind of 'word/intent of the artist' that otherwise isn't necessarily twys like how characters are related. It's not really for stuff people want to tag, but can't really define in a way that satisfies twys because it's difficult/impossible to represent visually and/or is a concept everyone defines differently.

The virginity/defloration tags as currently used aren't great examples of what a lore tag should be. A significant chunk are people projecting their kink onto images with elements they associate with it, but aren't mutually inclusive. These wouldn't pass lore requirements and should be in sets instead.

I do though think there's room for it as lore- this is something that the artist can intend without it falling into twys. Without explicit dialog (or symbols) it's pretty much impossible to apply strict twys to it without either a significant portion of false positives/negatives. Lore also answers the question of "what about x definition of virginity?" with "virginity means what the artist says."

beholding said:
Can you elaborate?

There are two primary purpose for lore tags.
One is to convey correct (lore-based) information when incorrect (visual-based) information has to be tagged (e.g, tagged as ambiguous_gender but canonically male_(lore)).
The other is for things that "simply cannot be confirmed visually in the image itself, yet still relevant to the post" (e.g., incest).

As it currently stands, the only tags in the second category is the incest-related tags and we have been reluctant in adding more tags to that category.
Whether or not the character's virginity status is relevant to the post is currently up for debate.

dba_afish said:
also, the relevancy of a character's virginity status feels like it'd only matter if it's made clear by the post itself and otherwise it seems like it'd be kind of weird to tag it. and if it's already made clear by the contents of the post it'd be fine to have it as a general tag.

Dialogue and descriptions are outside the scope of TWYS, so virginity cannot be "made clear by the post itself" under TWYS rules. Thus the problem. Even if the policy were changed to permit tagging based on dialogue, there is an issue of pools/comics where dialogue may only clearly establish virginity on one page of many. (pool #20518 is a good demonstration of this, I think.)

As for whether it's valid for a lore tag, the help page states of lore tags:

Conversely, some fetish tags (like incest) cannot always be definitively confirmed through the image itself, and thus belong in the lore category.

I think this is a clear argument in favor of virginity deserving a lore tag. Like incest, it is a fetish that cannot be definitively confirmed through the image itself. If we limit it to author statements and explicit statements in dialogue/description, that should cut down on at least some of the abuse mentioned (such as tagging it on young posts without justification).

beholding said:
Dialogue and descriptions are outside the scope of TWYS, so virginity cannot be "made clear by the post itself" under TWYS rules. Thus the problem.

dialogue is outside of TWYS for strictly visual tags, which most of the general tags are, but not so for dialogue or theme tags. there are already plenty of things like mommy_kink and impregnation_request which are tagged by dialogue exclusively, and stuff like infidelity and rape which are tagged holisticly, taking both visual and textual information into account.

What do people think of a stated virginity tag, then?

beholding said:
What do people think of a stated virginity tag, then?

Great idea, +1

beholding said:
What do people think of a stated virginity tag, then?

+1

beholding said:
What do people think of a stated virginity tag, then?

another +1

I'll see about adding it to existing virgin posts where appropriate, then. The only question remaining is whether virgin itself can remain a lore tag or should be made an invalid tag.

dba_afish said:
dialogue is outside of TWYS for strictly visual tags, which most of the general tags are, but not so for dialogue or theme tags. there are already plenty of things like mommy_kink and impregnation_request which are tagged by dialogue exclusively, and stuff like infidelity and rape which are tagged holisticly, taking both visual and textual information into account.

The thing is, incest and familial relationships can be established through dialogue too, but they're exclusively lore.

...And I've run into edge cases almost immediately.

post #5282137 features a character being called a virgin by another character, but no word from the supposed virgin himself. Should this count?

post #5278313 has a character wearing clothing labeled "virgin". Should this count?

post #5269075 only implies virginity in dialogue, but virginity is explicitly stated in the post's description. (This seems like a good use case for "virgin (lore)".) For the moment I've created a temporary stated virginity in description tag so we can come back to these.

post #5195712 has a character state it's their first kiss, but no statement of other sexual experience. Should that count?

post #5147059 features "cherry popping" imagery. Should that count? (I've created a cherry popping tag for these since I figure it's worth tagging regardless.)

post #4945652 has a character say he's never seen a naked woman before. This doesn't preclude the possibility he's had sex with men, so I don't know if that should count.

post #4983217 only features the idiom "becoming a man" in dialogue. Is that conclusive enough to count?

These questions should probably also be answered for other "stated" tags, while we're at it.

Tangentially, I've discovered there is an implied sexuality tag. Should we have an implied virginity tag for things like ambiguous dialogue and the presence of a hymen, or would that just create a bigger mess?

beholding said:
Tangentially, I've discovered there is an implied sexuality tag. Should we have an implied virginity tag for things like ambiguous dialogue and the presence of a hymen, or would that just create a bigger mess?

Tags like that don't make much sense. To be implied_<something> means there's some visible but inconclusive evidence for something, e.g. implied_transformation relies on visual cues like a feral with oversized or discarded clothing, or a beastly anthro with torn clothing, or a character looking at themself with surprise or confusion (you don't see a transformation, but it's the most likely explanation for what's visible). So "implied sexuality" or "implied virginity" would still need some visible element that potentially indicates sexuality or virginity. However, many implied_<something> tags are a result of <something> not being visible at all and not taggable, and is being asserted by the tagger or artist, trying to sidestep that we don't have a <something>_(lore) tag for something they want to tag but can't because of TWYS.

Apparently implied sexuality is actually not used for any posts, only implied homosexuality. That's definitely a sign it's not a good tag. At most, one could argue that pride pins should be considered implied rather than stated, but even that's questionable. Actually, pride pins are considered stated sexuality according to the wiki, so it's not even useful for that.

That said, a hymen is a pretty clear visible element that potentially indicates virginity, and many posts currently tagged virgin are tagged based on that alone. Granted, I think a hymen tag is a better choice there due to being objective.

post #4833561 (and similar posts) makes me wonder if a virginity kink/virginity fetish tag is warranted. On the one hand we already have foot fetish, nipple fetish, mommy kink, etc. On the other hand, I don't like those tags very much because they run into similar problems to the ones we're seeing with virgin.