So. breeding works for when it's actively visible in the image (though seems it needs a bit of a cleanup), but this is more about when a character could become pregnant during the act, regardless of if they are currently trying to breed or not. Qualifications as they currently stand are being of the same taxanomic family (so horses and zebras and donkeys and onagers are one example; all the different variety of wolves and dogs another, and so on). Interspecies, due to different mechanics between different characters in the furry fandom, are excluded unless they display some form of concern for breeding ("Please, impregnate me!", "Pull out! It's not safe!" "wear a condom, I don't want to get pregnant").

Basically, if the two going at it COULD give birth, breeding_pair applies. Because it requires a pair, artificial insemination would be generally excluded, though discussion for exceptions where the partner is also the donor (at least one work I know of has two soon-to-be mothers where they both get pregnant by having pairs of both partner's eggs artificially fused together in a lab then implanted inside their wombs, so they can give birth together. Unsure if it works that way or if they have to do a nuclear transplant of the zygote's nuclei from an egg to a donor sperm or what; I'll admit I haven't looked too far into the RL science of it, but it was hot as fuck) are quite possible.

So, discussion, restart! :P

This seems like a bad tag, why have breeding when there is the tag sex? Keep it simple, besides there are far too many tag debates on bad tags lately on the forums....lets just keep the tag sex >.>

Conker said:
This seems like a bad tag, why have breeding when there is the tag sex? Keep it simple, besides there are far too many tag debates on bad tags lately on the forums....lets just keep the tag sex >.>

It's not simply about sex, it's about chance of impregnation. And yes, there is an entire fetish around this. :P We already have breeding and birthing/birth but breeding seems to be used more for when it's visibly impregnating (usually with a cutaway or confirmation that one has gotten pregnant) and birthing/birth is for, well, when giving birth. As I stated in the first sentence, this is more about the thrill of risking pregnancy when having sex.

I concur. It's a common enough fetish to be tagged.
I'm still unsure about what exactly would fall under it, though.

Would a pairing such as Skitty and Wailord be tagged with this? Since they can, in fact, breed.

Genjar said:
I concur. It's a common enough fetish to be tagged.
I'm still unsure about what exactly would fall under it, though.

Would a pairing such as Skitty and Wailord be tagged with this? Since they can, in fact, breed.

sounds like a breeding_pair to me.

123easy said:
It's not simply about sex, it's about chance of impregnation.

Than any image of sex without a condom would be a breeding pair. Or any image showing cum flooding some inner parts of a female...or herm...or cuntboy ect. It seems if you want to see images like this all you need to do is put "sex straight -condom" as thats all it is, sex without a condom.

Conker said:
Than any image of sex without a condom would be a breeding pair. Or any image showing cum flooding some inner parts of a female...or herm...or cuntboy ect. It seems if you want to see images like this all you need to do is put "sex straight -condom" as thats all it is, sex without a condom.

If a human has sex with (for example) a dolphin, they'll never produce an offspring. Condom or not.

This tag is for pairs that can actually breed. Get it?

Genjar said:
If a human has sex with (for example) a dolphin, they'll never produce an offspring. Condom or not.

This tag is for pairs that can actually breed. Get it?

Then you could just add a " -interspecies " to the search terms Conker already said, this time I agree with Conker's opinion on this.

Genjar said:
If a human has sex with (for example) a dolphin, they'll never produce an offspring. Condom or not.

This tag is for pairs that can actually breed. Get it?

I'm sorry but I agree with Conk. You're saying that if two of the same species have sex, that's breeding? If so, then we should alias it to sex because it's literally the same thing but with the same species.

Butterscotch said:
Then you could just add a " -interspecies " to the search terms Conker already said, this time I agree with Conker's opinion on this.

Except, again, that won't find pairs such as the aforementioned skitty + wailord, or horse + zebra. Since such are tagged as interspecies.

Genjar said:
If a human has sex with (for example) a dolphin, they'll never produce an offspring. Condom or not.

And how do you think that are anthro dolphins produced, huh?

According to what 123easy wrote it depends on context. For example if male dolphin is saying "Now she's pregnant!" then it's going to be tagged.
I wonder if it's going to be tagged when dolphin says "Pregnant!", and woman says "No, you idiot I can't be pregnant with you. Don't you know anything about science?!". What if there are two dolphins for "yes", and one woman for "no". Should we treat this as voting?

Genjar said:
Except, again, that won't find pairs such as the aforementioned skitty + wailord

HSOWA - Hot Skitty On Wailord Action tag would cover that. Lol

Genjar said:
If a human has sex with (for example) a dolphin, they'll never produce an offspring. Condom or not.

This tag is for pairs that can actually breed. Get it?

But anything in the furry world can breed. As Gilda said, "anthro dolphins" we also have a number of images on this site that are of combined species.

Conker said:
HSOWA - Hot Skitty On Wailord Action tag would cover that. Lol

...we actually have a tag for that? :7
Well, lemme think of an another example. Zangoose + Seviper. Tagged as interspecies, but can actually breed in the canon. (Despite being mortal enemies).

But anything in the furry world can breed.

I'd consider that headcanon instead of actual canon. I can think of plenty of examples from furry webcomics and fiction where different species cannot interbreed.

@Genjar,

>furry fandom
>actual canon

Okay, now I'm convinced that this tag is not going to work.

Genjar said:
...we actually have a tag for that? :7
Well, lemme think of an another example. Zangoose + Seviper. Tagged as interspecies, but can actually breed in the canon. (Despite being mortal enemies).

As said on another recent bad mlp tag, if we need to use outside info to use the tag, and it ignores tag what you see...than its not a very good tag now is it?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
And how do you think that are anthro dolphins produced, huh?

According to what 123easy wrote it depends on context. For example if male dolphin is saying "Now she's pregnant!" then it's going to be tagged.
I wonder if it's going to be tagged when dolphin says "Pregnant!", and woman says "No, you idiot I can't be pregnant with you. Don't you know anything about science?!". What if there are two dolphins for "yes", and one woman for "no". Should we treat this as voting?

Well, if I was to be doing it along the original concept, logic would supercede, since humans and dolphins cannot naturally interbreed. However, if the woman were to tell the doplhin to pull out so she didn't get pregnant, then by the original concept, it would be tagged. I address some of that below, however.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
@Genjar,

>furry fandom
>actual canon

Okay, now I'm convinced that this tag is not going to work.

That's actually part of the point. Original character canon shouldn't matter. If the species, based on IRL interbreeding, cannot breed, then it wouldn't get tagged (originally, it might, if there was concern for getting pregnant from the female). Original species (folf, for example), same species only; Considering historically fictional species for that as well, but some species are historically known to be fertile outside their own species, but...

Conker said:
As said on another recent bad mlp tag, if we need to use outside info to use the tag, and it ignores tag what you see...than its not a very good tag now is it?

VERY good point. In that case, since snakes and mongoose cannot interbreed, I wouldn't tag it there; Pokemon would be better to base off the actual creatures that they are designed from, if any, rather than their egg group, for the purposes of this tag. Considering this, fictional species should be treated just like original characters- same species only, to keep its use consistant.

So, any two snakes of opposite gender having sex would be a breeding pair. Any two wolves or foxes as above, as well, and so on.

Hmm... Given this, is this current definition sufficiently separate from the meaning of the breeding tag, or should this functionality simply be added to that tag instead of making another tag?

123easy said:
VERY good point. In that case, since snakes and mongoose cannot interbreed, I wouldn't tag it there; Pokemon would be better to base off the actual creatures that they are designed from-....(outside info)

I'll stop you here, again if we need to use outside info for using this tag and it ignores tag what you see...its not that good of a tag. I think everyone is in agreement with this so far.

Conker said:
I'll stop you here, again if we need to use outside info for using this tag and it ignores tag what you see...its not that good of a tag. I think everyone is in agreement with this so far.

I'm not sure how that ignores TWYS...?
For instance, feral Seviper looks like a snake to me. No outside info required.

Genjar said:
I'm not sure how that ignores TWYS...?
For instance, feral Seviper looks like a snake to me. No outside info required.

Exactly. That's not outside info, except in the broadest sense of "have to know what a snake looks like", and that's going way too far for "this is outside info".

Genjar said:
I'm not sure how that ignores TWYS...?
For instance, feral Seviper looks like a snake to me. No outside info required.

Well the tag seems to just follow pokemon, and we know pokemon have some off egg types and breeding kinds. Aka a small cat breeding with a whale. For us to take that as breeding pair that would se outside info.

Conker said:
Well the tag seems to just follow pokemon, and we know pokemon have some off egg types and breeding kinds. Aka a small cat breeding with a whale. For us to take that as breeding pair that would se outside info.

There were some examples with pokemon, but it's not specific to pokemon, and I said that using egg groups would probably be wrong because of the point you raised. Did you even read my post...? mean, you literally snipped it at where I was talking about only going by the animals they resembled and are tagged for species-wise because of that resemblance -.-

On the Pokémon bit, I know you said that we should go off of what animals Pokémon are based on, like Seviper being a snake and such. However as someone who lives and breathes Pokémon I feel the need to assert that it's not always clear cut as to what Pokémon are based off of. Take most of the Eeveelutions for example. Are they foxes? Cats? Mythical creatures? All/some/none of the above? Nobody knows for certain. Even Bulbapedia, one of the most well trusted sources of Pokémon information, is completely up in the air about it all. (Having to resort to the use of Bulbapedia would be considered using "outside information" and render tagging based upon it invalid anyways. [Or so I would imagine. Correct me if I'm wrong.])

The point stands that "Let's judge breeding possibility based on what animal (if any, that's another issue) a Pokémon most resembles." doesn't work if you aren't certain about what animal it most resembles in the first place.

FatherOfGray said:
On the Pokémon bit, I know you said that we should go off of what animals Pokémon are based on, like Seviper being a snake and such. However as someone who lives and breathes Pokémon I feel the need to assert that it's not always clear cut as to what Pokémon are based off of. Take most of the Eeveelutions for example. Are they foxes? Cats? Mythical creatures? All/some/none of the above? Nobody knows for certain. Even Bulbapedia, one of the most well trusted sources of Pokémon information, is completely up in the air about it all. (Having to resort to the use of Bulbapedia would be considered using "outside information" and render tagging based upon it invalid anyways. [Or so I would imagine. Correct me if I'm wrong.])

The point stands that "Let's judge breeding possibility based on what animal (if any, that's another issue) a Pokémon most resembles." doesn't work if you aren't certain about what animal it most resembles in the first place.

Actually, that's alleviated by "if it's an original species tag it only if it's same species". So eevee with eevee, vaporeon with vaporeon, etc. etc.

123easy said:
Actually, that's alleviated by "if it's an original species tag it only if it's same species". So eevee with eevee, vaporeon with vaporeon, etc. etc.

But it's known in canon that they can breed with more than themselves.

Ugh, personally I thing the best way to use this tag, if we need it at all, is to use it ONLY on images in which
A) Pregancy is presented through dialogue to be a possible outcome of sexual intercourse.
B) When pregancy is demonstrated to be the result of intercourse on the same image, be it sperm fertilizing egg, a fetus, a pregnant character, whatever.

FatherOfGray said:
But it's known in canon that they can breed with more than themselves.

Ugh, personally I thing the best way to use this tag, if we need it at all, is to use it ONLY on images in which
A) Pregancy is presented through dialogue to be a possible outcome of sexual intercourse.
B) When pregancy is demonstrated to be the result of intercourse on the same image, be it sperm fertilizing egg, a fetus, a pregnant character, whatever.

outside knowledge that is canon doesn't matter to TWYS. Not for Pokemon, not for MLP, not for Transformers, not for anything. :P

Besides, this is about risking impregnation, not about actually becoming pregnant; There's the impregnation tag for that.