Should cum_in_ass + male = gay tag? Even if it's solo. "gay solo" yields lots of examples of this; Is this precedent on e621?

Apparently, yes.

Yes, but I still thoroughly disagree with the ruling.

I find it super weird that people don't see the logic here.
I mean, it's POSSIBLE that it was a dickgirl or tentacles or something, but the point of tagging is to get people the content they want to see. If someone has blacklisted 'gay', do you really think they want to see a guy with jizz seeping out?
Conversely, if someone is looking for gay material, they probably want creamy butts included on that list!
It's an art site, not a dictionary. :V

Further, we assume disembodied penises are male because penises are by default on males; To have cum inside an ass, one would need to penetrate said ass with a penis or penis-tentacle. If the penetrating impliment is not visible on the image, it is assumed it was a male's penis that came. It's a logical extension of the disembodied penis logic.

Halite said:
Yes, but I still thoroughly disagree with the ruling.

This.

elad said:
I find it super weird that people don't see the logic here.
I mean, it's POSSIBLE that it was a dickgirl or tentacles or something, but the point of tagging is to get people the content they want to see. If someone has blacklisted 'gay', do you really think they want to see a guy with jizz seeping out?
Conversely, if someone is looking for gay material, they probably want creamy butts included on that list!
It's an art site, not a dictionary. :V

Do you think someone who has gay blacklisted wants to see nude solo males?
We don't tag that as gay either.

Halite said:
Do you think someone who has gay blacklisted wants to see nude solo males?
We don't tag that as gay either.

Which is annoying since all those get filtered out of my search. :/

Halite said:
Do you think someone who has gay blacklisted wants to see nude solo males?
We don't tag that as gay either.

For that reason, I kinda think gay should be applicable to male solo in general (if say, for example, he's presenting himself). Girls do use this site though and I guess it's possible they would want to see male butts without it being called gay.

In this specific example though, it's very clear that sex has already happened, so you're turning the gay probability up from 50% to like... 95%.

I feel the ultimate goal here should be getting everyone to find what they're looking for, rather than be to-the-letter accurate. We'll never get it so it's perfect for everyone, you just need to get the greater majority.

Thank you elad. I don't like having to do an entirely seperate search for male solo. It's annoying, and because of that I rarely do it.

Problem is, the gay tag is intended to be a label of male on male action in an image.

On top of which, a solo male is not gay by definition, at all.
Nor is it targeted at gay audiences, there are women out there that enjoy porn too.

Labeling anything as gay that is not explicitly male on male romantic, or sexual activity is absurd.
By that logic we should label all solo female images as lesbian.

Well, why not? It's another example of a tag making things much easier to search for- lesbian making it easier to find solo females as well as those having homosexual relations. And frankly, those looking for solo males are more likely to be interested in Gay sex than those whom search for solo females & lesbian sex. What's more, those who search for said solo tags won't suddenly have gay/lesbian images included in their search. It hurts nobody and only helps.

Halite said:
Problem is, the gay tag is intended to be a label of male on male action in an image.

On top of which, a solo male is not gay by definition, at all.
Nor is it targeted at gay audiences, there are women out there that enjoy porn too.

Labeling anything as gay that is not explicitly male on male romantic, or sexual activity is absurd.
By that logic we should label all solo female images as lesbian.

A solo male that has cum in his ass JUST HAD SEX. That is an image of a male who has just finished a SEXUAL ACTIVITY where he was penetrated and cum inside. Your logic is fallacious at best.

123easy said:
A solo male that has cum in his ass JUST HAD SEX. That is an image of a male who has just finished a SEXUAL ACTIVITY where he was penetrated and cum inside. Your logic is fallacious at best.

Had sex with whom?
Could just as easily in the furry world have been a dickgirl or herm.
Aside from which, my earlier comment you just replied to was talking about tagging solo males as gay in general, not just those with cum in their ass.

anon_X said:
Well, why not? It's another example of a tag making things much easier to search for- lesbian making it easier to find solo females as well as those having homosexual relations. And frankly, those looking for solo males are more likely to be interested in Gay sex than those whom search for solo females & lesbian sex. What's more, those who search for said solo tags won't suddenly have gay/lesbian images included in their search. It hurts nobody and only helps.

It hurts straight females who want to see solo explicit male images, but not gay images.
Assuming that those who are searching for nude solo males are looking for gay material is presumptuous, you're assuming a lack of straight females.

Straight females tend to find gay sex hot. And how does one word on an image hurt females?

Peekaboo said:
Not sure if it really should be tagged gay, that is, if there is not another penis in the image that does not belong to the guy with cum in his pooper.
Can't people who want to avoid guys with cum in der butts just blacklist solo + male + cum_in_ass?

Sure but the problem is that tagging it as gay would make it easier for people (eg me) to find such pictures. On the other hand, some people seem to have confused this with Marriam-Webster's website.

dupe topic

continue discussion here