The question came up if pictures like those

post #248080 post #387301
are counting as straight or bisexual.

123Easy brought in the following point:

....I'd leave straight or bi out of it, because unless all characters are interacting with both other parties in the image, we can't really tell. I mean, two guys fucking one girl could just really like the one girl so much they don't care about other guys' cocks... or they might not have any sort of attachment to the social more of not fucking the same girl as another guy. Same for two girls on one guy- they could be his wives in a poly relationship, who love him but don't make love to each other.

So the question is do we need a new tag for this or not?

If yes, Easy suggested shared_partner.

Makes sense, but some content could be too ambiguous visually. It could be used when two of the individuals are not interacting with each other directly, but due to said ambiguity, it should imply bisexual.

Spess_Muhreen said:
Makes sense, but some content could be too ambiguous visually. It could be used when two of the individuals are not interacting with each other directly, but due to said ambiguity, it should imply bisexual.

It should not imply bisexual if they are not interacting with each other directly, since they may simply be, as the tag states, sharing a partner. Two hetero men servicing one hetero woman, for example, or multiple hetero women servicing one hetero man- neither situation intrinsically indicates bisexualism, since the focus of the pair is on pleasuring the singular. Two guys licking and sucking down a horse cock most certainly aren't being depicted as being bisexual, for another example. You could replace appropriate terms with 'lesbian' or 'gay' and appropriate sentence restructuring to indicate the proper pair ups.

I would say straight and shared_partner for the cock grinding thing, and the respective orientations for when they are engaging with eachother, but let's not assume the orientation of individuals not directly interacting with each other

123easy said:
It should not imply bisexual if they are not interacting with each other directly, since they may simply be, as the tag states, sharing a partner. Two hetero men servicing one hetero woman, for example, or multiple hetero women servicing one hetero man- neither situation intrinsically indicates bisexualism, since the focus of the pair is on pleasuring the singular. Two guys licking and sucking down a horse cock most certainly aren't being depicted as being bisexual, for another example. You could replace appropriate terms with 'lesbian' or 'gay' and appropriate sentence restructuring to indicate the proper pair ups.

It is the same with this, are they bisexual just because both use their tits to get him off ?

post #436884

If they were kissing it's an entirely different story.

123easy said:
Two guys licking and sucking down a horse cock most certainly aren't being depicted as being bisexual, for another example.

But that's also because one male sucking off a male horse, is inherently gay, it's not the gay relationship between the two males, its the gay relationship between the males and the male horse.

Moon_Moon said:
But that's also because one male sucking off a male horse, is inherently gay, it's not the gay relationship between the two males, its the gay relationship between the males and the male horse.

And that is why two girls sucking off a male is not inherantly bisexual. Because it's about the relationship between the two to the one, not between all three, unless the image explicitly shows the two interacting with each other.

Lunatic91 said:
It is the same with this, are they bisexual just because both use their tits to get him off ?

post #436884

If they were kissing it's an entirely different story.

I'd tag that as bisexual. We tag what we see, I see breasts being squished together with a dick sandwiched between them. Breast squishing with another girl with dick in there = bisexual as defined by TWYS

TheHuskyK9 said:
I'd tag that as bisexual. We tag what we see, I see breasts being squished together with a dick sandwiched between them. Breast squishing with another girl with dick in there = bisexual as defined by TWYS

...How the hell is that bisexual as defined by TWYS? They aren't paying any attention to each other, they're just pleasuring the male. There's no bisexual implication involved in that at all. The way you're using it is similar to that stupid "Balls aren't touching it's not gay!" mentality.

123easy said:
...How the hell is that bisexual as defined by TWYS? They aren't paying any attention to each other, they're just pleasuring the male. There's no bisexual implication involved in that at all. The way you're using it is similar to that stupid "Balls aren't touching it's not gay!" mentality.

Sexual/suggestive contact between two females gets tagged lesbian, since there's a penis between their breasts, it is indeed bisexual, I agree with Husky.

123easy said:
...How the hell is that bisexual as defined by TWYS? They aren't paying any attention to each other, they're just pleasuring the male. There's no bisexual implication involved in that at all. The way you're using it is similar to that stupid "Balls aren't touching it's not gay!" mentality.

Did I not already explain it in my post? One of them (or both) has to be comfortable to mosh boobs with one another or else they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. We don't know if one of them is bisexual or not, but two girls squishing their boobs together AND between a dick is a good enough implication of a bisexual act. And no, I don't follow that "stupid 'Balls aren't touching it's not gay!' mentality", don't assume.

Think about it, take away the dick and you got two girls looking at the viewer while they're squishing boobs. First thing that comes to mind is "Oh, they're lesbians that are pleasing the audience". Whoop insert a dick in there and you get *drum roll* bisexual! Definitely not lesbian, because of dick, and definitely not straight or gay, because of the girls, what's left? Bisexual

TheHuskyK9 said:
Did I not already explain it in my post? One of them (or both) has to be comfortable to mosh boobs with one another or else they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. We don't know if one of them is bisexual or not, but two girls squishing their boobs together AND between a dick is a good enough implication of a bisexual act. And no, I don't follow that "stupid 'Balls aren't touching it's not gay!' mentality", don't assume.

Think about it, take away the dick and you got two girls looking at the viewer while they're squishing boobs. First thing that comes to mind is "Oh, they're lesbians that are pleasing the audience". Whoop insert a dick in there and you get *drum roll* bisexual! Definitely not lesbian, because of dick, and definitely not straight or gay, because of the girls, what's left? Bisexual

That is pretty much my point

Whether they're tagged straight or bi, I dunno, but I'm in favor of creating the shared_partner tag.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Did I not already explain it in my post? One of them (or both) has to be comfortable to mosh boobs with one another or else they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. We don't know if one of them is bisexual or not, but two girls squishing their boobs together AND between a dick is a good enough implication of a bisexual act. And no, I don't follow that "stupid 'Balls aren't touching it's not gay!' mentality", don't assume.

Think about it, take away the dick and you got two girls looking at the viewer while they're squishing boobs. First thing that comes to mind is "Oh, they're lesbians that are pleasing the audience". Whoop insert a dick in there and you get *drum roll* bisexual! Definitely not lesbian, because of dick, and definitely not straight or gay, because of the girls, what's left? Bisexual

I didn't say you were following the "balls aren't touching it's not gay!" mentality, I said that your argument is similar to it.

How is not freaking out about who else you're touching while pleasuring one person indicative that your sexuality is halfway gay (bisexualism seen from the heteronormative side) or halfway straight (seen from the homonormative side)? It's like crying out that someone is gay because they're willing to change in a semi-private area (locker room, anyone?).

If the dick WERE to be taken out I'd wonder what the hell they're looking at, for one, and what they were leaning in to lick. They aren't paying any attention to each other, only to the male they're servicing. You're asking to pull an entire other character from the picture- of course it'd change the dynamic. And yes, it's another character even if it's a penis- that's how we tagged disembodied penises as well. The first thought that comes to my mind isn't that they're bisexuals that just so *happened* to get a dick stuck between their breasts. They very obviously are focussing on it. It is the main attachment of their attention. They aren't paying each other any attention at all.

post #439047

Two horses fucking a fox. Because of being horses, they have a bar they have their forelegs up on to hold themselves in place. The guys are touching, so they must be bisexual to care about touching while fucking the girl, right? No.

post #404004

The one guy is definitely bisexual, receiving anal and giving head, but still enjoying the female as well, in the comic. He is depicted more specifically in this image as both enjoying the breast hat and slobbering over the other guy's balls. He is sexually oriented towards both males and females.

post #436693

Girl on her knees is sucking on the girl's breasts. She isn't interacting with the male at all. She is lesbian, and the male is straight. The female in the middle is bisexual. (at least according to this image)

123easy said:
post #439047

Two horses fucking a fox. Because of being horses, they have a bar they have their forelegs up on to hold themselves in place. The guys are touching, so they must be bisexual to care about touching while fucking the girl, right? No.

You aren't understanding what I'm saying. That image you provided has no bisexual implication at all because the horses are just touching hooves, nothing bisexual about that. However, the two girls in the previous image gets the bisexual tag because of them moshing their breasts together. Breasts are used as a sex object when it comes to sexual things. Hooves are just hooves, there's nothing sexual about them.

TheHuskyK9 said:
[...]Hooves are just hooves, there's nothing sexual about them.

rong

post #376798

TheHuskyK9 said:
Hooves are just hooves, there's nothing sexual about them.

Says you. :p

Anyway.

Even if the balls are touching, it may not be gay. You can experience no discomfort around and in contact with genitalia without being sexually attracted to it.

HOWEVER. You cannot necessarily discern sexual attraction from an image. Two guys may be fucking the same chick, in the same hole, balls touching, and not be bisexual because they experience no physical attraction to each other. But because we cannot determine sexual attraction from an image, all we have to go on is sexual interaction. That is, when characters are interacting directly in a sexual way, we have to tag it based on what sexes we see. That's the best we can do.

I'm not sure about the post with the tits, but I think I'm going to have to agree that two dicks in the same hole needs to be tagged bisexual, as the males are directly interacting sexually, even if their focus is the female, and even if there is in fact no sexual attraction between them.

123easy said:
...
Girl on her knees is sucking on the girl's breasts. She isn't interacting with the male at all. She is lesbian, and the male is straight. The female in the middle is bisexual. (at least according to this image)

I think this point right here very clearly defines the issue you're having understanding this.
We aren't tagging the sexuality of the characters.
We tag the visible interaction in the image, if there is female/female interaction you tag lesbian, if there is male/male interaction you tag gay, if there is male/female/female or male/male/female interaction bisexual, male/female you tag straight.

As for the type of image that was the point of this post, here's the way I see it:
If you have an image with 3 characters, either male/male/female, or female/female/male, the way to decide if it deserves the bisexual tag is to remove "the odd man out" so to speak.

Imagine an identical image, but without the opposite gender member in it, for the 1st example up there with the ponies, that would be the penis in the image.
Now, ask yourself if that image without the penis would get a lesbian tag.
If yes, it ought to be tagged bisexual, if no, then not.

Halite said:
I think this point right here very clearly defines the issue you're having understanding this.
We aren't tagging the sexuality of the characters.
We tag the visible interaction in the image, if there is female/female interaction you tag lesbian, if there is male/male interaction you tag gay, if there is male/female/female or male/male/female interaction bisexual, male/female you tag straight.

No, I'm not having difficulty understanding it. The male is interacting with the female in the middle. Straight. The female in the middle is interacting with the male behind and the female below. bisexual. The female below is interacting with the female in the middle. Lesbian. These are the visible interactions in the image. The female below is not interacting with the male behind at all.

Imagine an identical image, but without the opposite gender member in it, for the 1st example up there with the ponies, that would be the penis in the image.
Now, ask yourself if that image without the penis would get a lesbian tag.
If yes, it ought to be tagged bisexual, if no, then not.

No. Just no. If there was no third character, it'd be another image. You don't tag according to what you might see if something isn't there, you tag according to what you see, period. The way you describe it is a warped conception.

Shared_partner sounds dirty, sexy, and thus something I wanna be. So yes I like that tag. I'm with OP. <3 X!

How would the shared_partner tag be defined?
I can't think of a good definition that wouldn't overlap with gangbang.. Unless it were strictly limited to threesomes?

Genjar said:
How would the shared_partner tag be defined?
I can't think of a good definition that wouldn't overlap with gangbang.. Unless it were strictly limited to threesomes?

gangbang technically is when you have one person sharing multiple partners in rapid succession. I do recognize we have been using it to represent when one character is used by many, many others at once as well, so in that case....

I'd restrict it to three-plus participants, obviously, and only in those cases where two or three participants are servicing a single other participant. Thus two-on-one, three-on-one, but not four-on-one. One example of extra participants (beyond five) would be a cock in the ass and pussy and mouth of one participant, while the one in the female participant's mouth could also be kissing another character (who the first two are uninvolved with) and jerking off another. Three marks the maximum orifice fulfilment with one cock or mouth or pussy per hole, which is why I make the distinction there; more than that and it swerves into the gangbang domain, I feel. I'll admit it's a subjective distinction, since it could be four for herms given they have anus, vagina, cock, and mouth to fulfil, but I still think it's applicable. Four would be reasonable for adding in a boobjob for females, or anus/double handjob/mouth for a gay scenario, but it feels like a few too many participants to me. *shrug* Of course, we could technically make gangbang a subtag to it and remove any arbitrary restriction to the number of participants sharing a single other.

Fair enough. It's certainly not limited to three characters. For instance, the lower right panel here would qualify as shared_partner:
post #163665

I'm just worried that it'll get confused with gangbang. I'm not sure if shared_partner is descriptive enough, since most taggers don't seem to check the wiki or the forums.

Just stumbled across this one while tagging:

post #440728

Since the dickgirl is not considered female,but intersex,should this count as bisexual?
According to the bisexual page not.

Lunatic91 said:
Since the dickgirl is not considered female,but intersex,should this count as bisexual?
According to the bisexual page not.

That would be dickgirl_on_female.
Dickgirls aren't tagged as straight or gay, so no bisexual either.

Edit: If that's a dickgirl. Seems a bit ambiguous, looks like she might be wearing a strap..

Genjar said:
That would be dickgirl_on_female.
Dickgirls aren't tagged as straight or gay, so no bisexual either.

Edit: If that's a dickgirl. Seems a bit ambiguous, looks like she might be wearing a strap..

Since it's unsure if it is a strap-on, should this go under ambiguous gender and straight?

Lunatic91 said:
Since it's unsure if it is a strap-on, should this go under ambiguous gender and straight?

It could also be a feeldoe. We only see pussy juice dripping and stringing between her thighs, no cum- if it was cum, we could say it's a dickgirl through inferrance and Occam's Razor. Since we can't see anything to confirm biologicals, I'd tag it ambiguous and not touch straight unless it wasn't already there for the male/female interaction.

Genjar said:
Fair enough. It's certainly not limited to three characters. For instance, the lower right panel here would qualify as shared_partner:
post #163665

I'm just worried that it'll get confused with gangbang. I'm not sure if shared_partner is descriptive enough, since most taggers don't seem to check the wiki or the forums.

Yeah, that's why I added at the end that it's completely a subjective attribution to limit the number and that shared_partner could very easily be made into a ur-tag for gangbang and these scenarios both, as gangbang is a subtype of shared partners, since it's specifically where there are a lot of partners sharing one participant, rather than a smaller amount.

I think shared_partner doesn't need to be limited. Yes it would overlap with threesome (after all, it can't really be a threesome unless SOMEONE is sharing a partner, right?) and be redundant, but that's not really a big deal.

Ooooorrrrr hm. We could use it as essentially a clarifying tag where it's only added to images with orgy on it indicating that there are in fact partners currently being shared.

Personally I wouldn't consider it bisexual/lesbian/gay if breasts or penises happen to be touching while joint-pleasuring someone else. If they were also kissing or something, yeah, but not just from incidental contact.

tony311 said:
Personally I wouldn't consider it bisexual/lesbian/gay if breasts or penises happen to be touching while joint-pleasuring someone else. If they were also kissing or something, yeah, but not just from incidental contact.

This. This exactly.

RedOctober said:
I think shared_partner doesn't need to be limited. Yes it would overlap with threesome (after all, it can't really be a threesome unless SOMEONE is sharing a partner, right?) and be redundant, but that's not really a big deal.

Ooooorrrrr hm. We could use it as essentially a clarifying tag where it's only added to images with orgy on it indicating that there are in fact partners currently being shared.

Threesomes, foursomes, et al. Basically a tag that indicates one person is being pleasured by multiple. That has a place in orgies as well as in private threesomes. Works for me.

tony311 said:
Personally I wouldn't consider it bisexual/lesbian/gay if breasts or penises happen to be touching while joint-pleasuring someone else. If they were also kissing or something, yeah, but not just from incidental contact.

Exactly what I've been saying.