Implicating autofellatio → penis
Link to implication

Reason:

Can't autofellatiate without a dick can we lol

What about this?:
post #272139

I suppose it's arguable whether that should be tagged as autofellatio...but it definitely shouldn't tagged with penis. Since there's none visible.

Genjar said:
What about this?:
post #272139

I suppose it's arguable whether that should be tagged as autofellatio...but it definitely shouldn't tagged with penis. Since there's none visible.

that (if it even is autofellatio) and the one mlp picture with snails are one offs on the entire tagset. I don't think two pictures out of over a thousand are enough to argue it. People can always remove the tag on those very sparse images that don't have a penis.

Sollux said:
People can always remove the tag on those very sparse images that don't have a penis.

No, they can't, that's the point of an implication.
It's not a 1 off thing, which is why it must be universally correct, or images end up mistagged and cannot be fixed.
Sorry, but not a good implication.

Halite said:
Sorry, but not a good implication.

But why? seriously, can you autofellate without a penis?

Clearly in that example picture his balls end and there is no penis :o

Butterscotch said:
But why? seriously, can you autofellate without a penis?

Without one that's visible in an image? Sure, why not.
You tag what's visible.
I'm not saying it's common, but it's possible, and possible exceptions make for bad implications.
We've had more than one situation where a bad implication made images impossible to tag properly, and it just ends up having to be removed, and fixed later on.

Sorry, but it's possible for an autofellatio pic to not show the penis. There are probably a lot of them, but I wouldnt know because ew

ippiki_ookami said:
Sorry, but it's possible for an autofellatio pic to not show the penis. There are probably a lot of them, but I wouldn't know because ew

Only 1 I found that doesn't have the penis tag currently.
Well, 1 valid one since I fixed the 20 or so that were just missing it.
Didn't check for ones that have the penis tag, but shouldn't though.
So, there's that.

Regardless, as I said, any images is too many since it would mean a permanently mis-tagged image.

Halite said:
Only 1 I found that doesn't have the penis tag currently.
Well, 1 valid one since I fixed the 20 or so that were just missing it.
Didn't check for ones that have the penis tag, but shouldn't though.
So, there's that.

Regardless, as I said, any images is too many since it would mean a permanently mis-tagged image.

most of them I've seen have at least one penis.

Xch3l said:
most of them I've seen have at least one penis.

Here's the thing: A penis might be implied what with balls and/or sheath, or a sucking face as if around a length- but without an actual penis visible, it fails TWYS and thus this alias fails to fulfil that requirement.

123easy said:
Here's the thing: A penis might be implied what with balls and/or sheath, or a sucking face as if around a length- but without an actual penis visible, it fails TWYS and thus this alias fails to fulfil that requirement.

I was referring to the fact that "most posts I've seen have at least 1 visible penis". Care to elaborate?

If there's at least one exception it's still a bad implication.

This will probably just have to be something routinely checked.

Seven_Twenty said:
If there's at least one exception it's still a bad implication.

This will probably just have to be something routinely checked.

Not even hard to check, just search autofellatio -penis
Then, look for penises and tag them.
Took me like 5 minutes to clean up today.

If you can't see the penis, how can you see the act of autofellatio? Isn't that an assumption?

edidaf said:
If you can't see the penis, how can you see the act of autofellatio? Isn't that an assumption?

This.

edidaf said:
If you can't see the penis, how can you see the act of autofellatio? Isn't that an assumption?

There are a few images where a char is doing the act of fellatio, including cum leaking from areas yet no penis in the image. We work off tag what you see, it would be a bad thing if the images where tagged with penis that had none.

Hey guys. So, right away, I'm thinking about the breasts discussion, where you can still tag an image even if the breasts are in a shirt, so long as it's clear they are breasts.

To me, I'm on the boat of "if autofellatio is the act of sucking your own penis, it would be implied that there is a penis."

Regardless, I will bring this up in Committee and see what the consensus is.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Hey guys. So, right away, I'm thinking about the breasts discussion, where you can still tag an image even if the breasts are in a shirt, so long as it's clear they are breasts.

To me, I'm on the boat of "if autofellatio is the act of sucking your own penis, it would be implied that there is a penis."

Regardless, I will bring this up in Committee and see what the consensus is.

The committee? consensus? What is this? What happened to letting the users and mods discuss this in public? Why does this have to be a private discussion without user's input or letting us have a say in what else is said on the subject?

Also, if we follow tag what you see you can see breasts in a shirt but you cant see a penis in a mouth. Following tag what you see means no penis = no penis tag.

Conker said:
The committee? consensus? What is this? What happened to letting the users and mods discuss this in public? Why does this have to be a private discussion without user's input or letting us have a say in what else is said on the subject?

Also, if we follow tag what you see you can see breasts in a shirt but you cant see a penis in a mouth. Following tag what you see means no penis = no penis tag.

Oh, Conker, you make me smile. I have no idea what happened to letting users discuss things in public... since you are discussing those things in public now :)

If you seem intent in fear farming about why I do things, it's so my response is something that the rest of the admins agree on. That's what a consensus is.

Also, no, you can't see breasts in a shirt. That's why it's a shirt.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Oh, Conker, you make me smile. I have no idea what happened to letting users discuss things in public... since you are discussing those things in public now :)

If you seem intent in fear farming about why I do things, it's so my response is something that the rest of the admins agree on. That's what a consensus is.

Lets stay on subject....

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Also, no, you can't see breasts in a shirt. That's why it's a shirt.

You CAN see breasts in a shirt, examples below.

post #333402
post #358032
post #348295
post #287453
post #226499
Breasts are visible in the shirt. However when there is a image without showing a penis, it shouldn't be tagged penis.

Conker said:
Lets stay on subject....

You do know you brought that subject up right?, also I'm with EDF's opinion on this.

Butterscotch said:
I'm with EDF's opinion on this.

So you think you cant see breasts though a shirt? ...when I posted examples above showing covered breasts in a shirt?

Conker said:

So you think you cant see breasts though a shirt? ...when I posted examples above showing covered breasts in a shirt?

You don't see the breasts directly, as you can't see the penis directly on those autofellatio images (those could be balloons or whatever else with that shape, you're making assumptions to tag breasts there, and as you say, breaking twys), I see the same case, that's why I said I'm with EDF's opinion.

Butterscotch said:
You don't see the breasts directly, as you can't see the penis directly on those autofellatio images (those could be balloons or whatever else with that shape, you're making assumptions to tag breasts there, and as you say, breaking twys), I see the same case, that's why I said I'm with EDF's opinion.

You see outlines of breasts....also balloons? are you serious? You are just pushing it now. Implying every image of a woman wearing a shirt has balloons in it....thats just crazy.

Yet you are making assumptions of a woman having balloons in her shirt....which as you said breaks tag what you see. If we are not going to use breasts as an example/reason using 'tag what you see' as deciding gender, than all fully dressed female images are now male or some other odd gender tag due to the fact that you think breasts could all be balloons or do not matter....it just doesnt work.

Conker said:
You see outlines of breasts....also balloons? are you serious? You are just pushing it now. Implying every image of a woman wearing a shirt has balloons in it....thats just crazy.

Yet you are making assumptions of a woman having balloons in her shirt....which as you said breaks tag what you see. If we are not going to use breasts as an example/reason using 'tag what you see' as deciding gender, than all fully dressed female images are now male or some other odd gender tag due to the fact that you think breasts could all be balloons or do not matter....it just doesnt work.

Yep, it doesn't work, just as saying that there is no penis in an autofellatio image does not work either.

Butterscotch said:
Yep, it doesn't work, just as saying that there is no penis in an autofellatio image does not work either.

Yes it does as there is evidence of there being a penis in the image. From cum leaking out of their mouth or shapes of a penis against their cheeks ect. However, There is no evidence of every woman having balloons in their shirts. So your point has fallen flat here...

Conker said:

Yes it does as there is evidence of there being a penis in the image. From cum leaking out of their mouth or shapes of a penis against their cheeks ect. However, There is no evidence of every woman having balloons in their shirts. So you have really failed at making your point on this one..

I said myself it doesn't work, I used that example to make you see how your argument about why this implication is bad just does not work either.

Clearly we tag all images with "pixels" and remove all other tags(aside from character names since you can verify those at the source).
That is all we see when viewing images on the internet.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Hey guys. So, right away, I'm thinking about the breasts discussion, where you can still tag an image even if the breasts are in a shirt, so long as it's clear they are breasts.

To me, I'm on the boat of "if autofellatio is the act of sucking your own penis, it would be implied that there is a penis."

By that logic, these and hundreds of other fellatio images should also be tagged with penis. "If fellatio is the act of sucking a penis, it would be implied that there is a penis.":
post #400174 post #287736 post #47930

That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. Same could be applied to numerous other tags, and TWYS rules are already enough of a mess without adding even more exceptions.

Genjar said:
By that logic, these and hundreds of other fellatio images should also be tagged with penis. "If fellatio is the act of sucking a penis, it would be implied that there is a penis.":
post #400174 post #287736 post #47930

That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. Same could be applied to numerous other tags, and TWYS rules are already enough of a mess without adding even more exceptions.

Agreed, we should stick to tag what you see, if there is no penis in the image then I see no reason to tag it penis. It doesnt make any sense. If the fellatio tag is the problem then we could find a new one....we shouldnt ignore tag what you see and start tagging things that are not in the image. If we do this than it defeats the purpose of the rule and breaks the search.

Hmmm. How about a new tag implied_penis for any image that you can't see the penis directly but you know there should be one somewhere?

Sollux said:
Hmmm. How about a new tag implied_penis for any image that you can't see the penis directly but you know there should be one somewhere?

No, the problem isnt the penis tag. The problem is the fellatio tag when there is no penis in the image. We shouldnt break tag what you see by adding "things that are not in the image but should be there" That defeats the purpose of the rule.

Sollux said:
Hmmm. How about a new tag implied_penis for any image that you can't see the penis directly but you know there should be one somewhere?

Seems unnecessary. You can always search for male -penis, and it ends up just being a bunch of guys with clothes on anyway.

Conker said:
No, the problem isnt the penis tag. The problem is the fellatio tag when there is no penis in the image. We shouldnt break tag what you see by adding "things that are not in the image but should be there" That defeats the purpose of the rule.

I was talking about as just another tag in general, to help with relevant pictures, I understand about the implications now a bit better though. Also on a side note your avatar erks me for some reason

Wyvrn said:
Seems unnecessary. You can always search for male -penis, and it ends up just being a bunch of guys with clothes on anyway.

true, I guess if you can use multiple tags to the same effect a new tag isn't really worth it.

Butterscotch said:
I said myself it doesn't work, I used that example to make you see how your argument about why this implication is bad just does not work either.

Er, except not really. See, what he's saying is that you can see there'd be breasts inside the women's shirts, as it deforms the shirt in quite obvious ways- this is why we still tag breasts in those situations, because it's visible even if behind a flimsy piece of clothing. Just because you hide breasts behind arms or hands, doesn't mean they aren't visible. :P However, if you have a woman standing so that her chest is not visible due to a solid object blocking the view, such as standing behind a fence while nude, while you might know that her breasts are there and hanging out, as they are not visible you can't tag them. This here is where the comparison is how it currently stands, as you can see that there is someone sucking on their own penis, maybe there's cum, or balls, maybe even a sheath- It's quite obvious that they're sucking themselves off and not just licking their vagina, but without the penis visible, you cannot tag penis.

123easy said:
Er, except not really. See, what he's saying is that you can see there'd be breasts inside the women's shirts, as it deforms the shirt in quite obvious ways- this is why we still tag breasts in those situations, because it's visible even if behind a flimsy piece of clothing. Just because you hide breasts behind arms or hands, doesn't mean they aren't visible. :P However, if you have a woman standing so that her chest is not visible due to a solid object blocking the view, such as standing behind a fence while nude, while you might know that her breasts are there and hanging out, as they are not visible you can't tag them. This here is where the comparison is how it currently stands, as you can see that there is someone sucking on their own penis, maybe there's cum, or balls, maybe even a sheath- It's quite obvious that they're sucking themselves off and not just licking their vagina, but without the penis visible, you cannot tag penis.

This is a really good point, in my opinion.

Genjar said:
By that logic, these and hundreds of other fellatio images should also be tagged with penis. "If fellatio is the act of sucking a penis, it would be implied that there is a penis.":
post #400174 post #287736 post #47930

That's a slippery slope if I ever saw one. Same could be applied to numerous other tags, and TWYS rules are already enough of a mess without adding even more exceptions.

Check and mate.

And regarding the breasts tag, I've always been opposed to it being used unless they're fully exposed, nipples and all. But I think my opinion's in the minority so I haven't really pushed for it to be changed.

ippiki_ookami said:
And regarding the breasts tag, I've always been opposed to it being used unless they're fully exposed, nipples and all.

I always thought you only tagged them while exposed O.o

ippiki_ookami said:
Check and mate.

And regarding the breasts tag, I've always been opposed to it being used unless they're fully exposed, nipples and all. But I think my opinion's in the minority so I haven't really pushed for it to be changed.

Personally I can understand and even partially agree with that, except of the issue of trying to tag the various clothed fetishes involving breasts. This is a problem that has arisen from using breasts as both an ur-tag for all breast-related images clothed or nude or furred into lack of nipplage, and as a tag in and of itself for bared/exposed breasts.

In agreement with the thread, there will not be an autofellatio -> penis implication.