Implicating anatomically_correct_pussy → anatomically_correct
Link to implication

Reason:

Well... I still have the same problem with this as in the other thread:
post #430474 post #427840

Can those really be considered anatomically correct?

Genjar said:
Well... I still have the same problem with this as in the other thread:
post #430474 post #427840

Can those really be considered anatomically correct?

What about either of those is anatomically correct? >_>; The pussy on the left doesn't even look realistic, it looks like raw beef left out on the counter to darken and then mashed all the fuck. Blegh.

The "anatomically correct" tag remains problematic. The wiki is vague, as is the tag, indicating that it's for "an anthropomorphic animal whose anatomy is in some way closer to the animal model than the human, sometimes in a way that might require some biological or zoological knowledge in order for you to understand WTF is going on."

This is difficult. At what point do we say it is no longer simply anatomically correct and is in fact feral? And how do we deal with mythological, hybrid, or otherwise "made up" characters?

I move to nullify anatomically_correct and alias all tags referring to correct genetalia to anatomically_correct_genetalia, as that is its most common use. Instances where it is referring to things such as correct mouthparts, feet, and other parts we already have tags. We have snout, paws and hooves, horns, beak, and so on. Beyond that, it seems totally unnecessary.

RedOctober said:
The "anatomically correct" tag remains problematic. The wiki is vague, as is the tag, indicating that it's for "an anthropomorphic animal whose anatomy is in some way closer to the animal model than the human, sometimes in a way that might require some biological or zoological knowledge in order for you to understand WTF is going on."

This is difficult. At what point do we say it is no longer simply anatomically correct and is in fact feral? And how do we deal with mythological, hybrid, or otherwise "made up" characters?

I move to nullify anatomically_correct and alias all tags referring to correct genetalia to anatomically_correct_genetalia, as that is its most common use. Instances where it is referring to things such as correct mouthparts, feet, and other parts we already have tags. We have snout, paws and hooves, horns, beak, and so on. Beyond that, it seems totally unnecessary.

anatomical correctness for genitalia is, in fact, according to the feral analogue. That wiki definition is rather vague and off-base, imo, and should be tanked regardless.

That's not to say it has to be a horse with an anatomically correct horsecock to tag it anatomically correct, but that the genitalia need to be accurate *enough* to the feral version, keeping in mind proportion to the body it belongs to (hypersized or mini-sized genitalia are proportionally incorrect anatomically).

Sorry, let me clarify. At what point do we say that the character isn't simply an "anatomically correct" character, and is actually just a feral one.

I've noticed lately that some posts are getting the anatomically_correct tag, even though the species in the picture doesn't really exist. Ex. being an alien or made up species. How can it be anatomically_correct if it doesn't have a real world counterpart to compare too?

Pyke said:
I've noticed lately that some posts are getting the anatomically_correct tag, even though the species in the picture doesn't really exist. Ex. being an alien or made up species. How can it be anatomically_correct if it doesn't have a real world counterpart to compare too?

I'm pretty sure they don't get/shouldn't get the anatomically_correct tag...

Fluttershy said:
I'm pretty sure they don't get/shouldn't get the anatomically_correct tag...

That's what I thought, so I had been removing the tags from the pictures only for them to be added back again.

Pyke said:
That's what I thought, so I had been removing the tags from the pictures only for them to be added back again.

Can you show an example? Some creatures don't exist, but take parts from other species that do exist, and thus can be (technically, according to the actual definition not the narrower one I think we should adopt re: genitalia only) anatomically correct to that species.

RedOctober said:
Sorry, let me clarify. At what point do we say that the character isn't simply an "anatomically correct" character, and is actually just a feral one.

Well, an equine furry with an anatomically correct horsecock should be tagged as such. So should an image of an anatomically correct feral horse.

As I noted above though, I think it should be narrowed in definition to just the genitalia, via the addition of "_genitalia" as a tag suffix as I suggested before, just to not have the issues of breadth of field on what exactly we are tagging that is anatomically correct within the image.

A lot of the posts under the lillibee tag are getting anatomically_correct, which I don't think it should.

Pyke said:
A lot of the posts under the lillibee tag are getting anatomically_correct, which I don't think it should.

Then that someone is being stupid and if he continues, report him for tag vandalism.

123easy said:
Then that someone is being stupid and if he continues, report him for tag vandalism.

Equine_pussy and canine_pussy currently imply anatomically_correct_pussy. Doesn't matter if it's a feline character with a canine pussy, or an alien with an equine one. Looks like that user was simply pre-empting this implication:

equine_pussy → anatomically_correct_pussy → anatomically_correct

Genjar said:
Equine_pussy and canine_pussy currently imply anatomically_correct_pussy. Doesn't matter if it's a feline character with a canine pussy, or an alien with an equine one. Looks like that user was simply pre-empting this implication:

equine_pussy → anatomically_correct_pussy → anatomically_correct

Neither of those were in use. They were manually added tags without any implications enforcing their existance. I was able to easily remove the tags without issue. The original poster who tags it as such should be informed not to, but he's not the one to report for tag vandalism. It's the one re-adding it after it has been removed that was mentioned above that should be.

123easy said:
Well, an equine furry with an anatomically correct horsecock should be tagged as such. So should an image of an anatomically correct feral horse.

As I noted above though, I think it should be narrowed in definition to just the genitalia, via the addition of "_genitalia" as a tag suffix as I suggested before, just to not have the issues of breadth of field on what exactly we are tagging that is anatomically correct within the image.

It just seems redundant to have both feral AND anatomically correct on a post. If it's feral, by all means it should...nevermind, nevermind. You could have a feral pokemon with a human penis. According to the anatomically_correct wiki, though, if the character displays MORE feral than antrhopomorphic, it gets the tag.

I'm gonna agree with 123Easy and my previous self to push to either redefine anatomically_correct to be used ONLY for genetalia or invalidate it and use anatomically_correct_genitalia, as most instances where a character is drawn with anatomically correct other bits that are the bits that are commonly anthropomorphized (such as the footbits), we already have tags for those.

RedOctober said:
It just seems redundant to have both feral AND anatomically correct on a post. If it's feral, by all means it should...nevermind, nevermind. You could have a feral pokemon with a human penis. According to the anatomically_correct wiki, though, if the character displays MORE feral than antrhopomorphic, it gets the tag.

I'm gonna agree with 123Easy and my previous self to push to either redefine anatomically_correct to be used ONLY for genetalia or invalidate it and use anatomically_correct_genitalia, as most instances where a character is drawn with anatomically correct other bits that are the bits that are commonly anthropomorphized (such as the footbits), we already have tags for those.

If it's human it should be human and anatomically correct by default then too? Nope, Doug_Winger. Just because it's feral doesn't mean that it's anatomically correct. My Little Ponies for example are not anatomically correct horses in their natural feral state. However if they were to be drawn realistically according to equine physiology (I'm sure there's at least one image that does so floating around here) then it would be feral and anatomically correct. Feral is a determinator of whether they are anthropomorphized or are animalistic, not whether they are anatomically correct.

Don't use the wiki page for this, it needs a major re-work. It's not good usage in the slightest.

Reposted from other thread here so we can discuss it in one place:
Use penis, vagina, anus then anatomically_correct, and have your three mane species groups of bits (horsecock, feline_penis, canine_penis, apologies if these aren't the exact terms) all of which implicate anatomically_correct (maybe?)

Or

Have these implications go through and be tagged in addition to penis, vagina, anus, anatomically_correct, etc (etc being anatomically correct_vagina, anus, penis)

I find it redundant to have both penis and anatomically_correct penis on a post
My vote goes for having the first option

Rainbow_Dash said:
Reposted from other thread here so we can discuss it in one place:
Use penis, vagina, anus then anatomically_correct, and have your three mane species groups of bits (horsecock, feline_penis, canine_penis, apologies if these aren't the exact terms) all of which implicate anatomically_correct (maybe?)

Or

Have these implications go through and be tagged in addition to penis, vagina, anus, anatomically_correct, etc (etc being anatomically correct_vagina, anus, penis)

I find it redundant to have both penis and anatomically_correct penis on a post
My vote goes for having the first option

I´m for the first too.

Both of those options seem equally bad to me.
I think anatomically_correct should only be tagged on images that actually are anatomically correct, and shouldn't be implicated from canine_pussy, etc.

Genjar said:
Both of those options seem equally bad to me.
I think anatomically_correct should only be tagged on images that actually are anatomically correct, and shouldn't be implicated from canine_pussy, etc.

Alright then have the first option but not have it implicate anatomically_correct, as in where I said (maybe?)

I don't think any type of genitalia should be default implying anatomically_correct, since, as we showed with Doug Winger, human genitalia can be anything but anatomically correct, even if they fit the other basic requirements. It can be an obviously equine pussy without being anatomically correct because of bad or overly exaggerated proportions or the like.

Alright so we are all in agreeance with using penis, vagina, anus then anatomically_correct, and have your three mane species groups of bits (horsecock, feline_penis, canine_penis, apologies if these aren't the exact terms) all of which implicate anatomically_correct of which none implicate anatomically correct and anatomically correct is added manually?

This discussion seems to have stalled, but I've been thinking about it.. Here's my suggestion:

First unimplicate canine_pussy and equine_pussy from anatomically_correct_pussy, then implicate them to the animal_genitalia umbrella tag instead.

Then we'd have two separate tag groups: one group for various animal genitals, and other for anatomically correct genitals (not limited to animals, and only tagged if actually anatomically correct). As far as I can see, that'd maximize the searchability.

How does this sound?

Genjar said:
This discussion seems to have stalled, but I've been thinking about it.. Here's my suggestion:

First unimplicate canine_pussy and equine_pussy from anatomically_correct_pussy, then implicate them to the animal_genitalia umbrella tag instead.

Then we'd have two separate tag groups: one group for various animal genitals, and other for anatomically correct genitals (not limited to animals, and only tagged if actually anatomically correct). As far as I can see, that'd maximize the searchability.

How does this sound?

+1

Implications to anatomically correct deleted. Horsecock, equine pussy, canine pussy and canine penis implicated to animal genitalia. Anatomically correct penis, pussy and anus implicated to anatomically correct

Good?

Sounds good, thanks.

There's a lot of anatomically uncorrect genitalia left in anatomically_correct, but I'll put cleaning those on my to-do list.

Genjar said:
Sounds good, thanks.

There's a lot of anatomically uncorrect genitalia left in anatomically_correct, but I'll put cleaning those on my to-do list.

<3 much appreciated