Well, exhibitionism is defined by revealing your goods to someone for the purpose of becoming aroused. thus, any case of exhibitionism is technically also a case of presenting.

not... really.

exhibitionism (this is not my fetish so I could be wrong) is generally defined as wanting people to see and watch you. this could be presenting your goods to someone, but it could also be masturbating in a public place, having sex somewhere where people can see you.

Exhibitionism and voyeur would be better linked, in this circumstance because you can't really have one without the other... except, this is art so maybe you *can*./...

But exhibitionism is someone exposing THEMSELVES to someone/public, whereas voyeurism is spying on someone WITHOUT their knowledge. So they're kind of opposites.

good point. Eh. I don't claim I'm thinking clearly, ATM :P but presenting and exhibitionism don't really need to be implicating either.

But exhibitionism is exposing oneself in a non-private situation for the intent of becoming aroused. Would not the effort of "putting on a show" so to speak count as presenting? After all, they are exhibiting their goods to at least one other person who normally wouldn't be exposed to them.

And voyeurism isn't specifically "without their knowledge". It simply means watching others for the purposes of sexually gratifying oneself. it can be consensual or without the knowledge of the others, in private or in public (usually combined with exhibitionism on the voyeur's behalf if it's being done publicly, though it doesn't have to be; They can be jerking off hidden in some bushes while two lovebirds fuck against a tree or something, though they do NOT need to be touching oneself- the thrill comes from the watching, not the doing).

post #81912 and post #8736 are both examples of exhibitionism and voyeurism; The female in both (in the former in her dream/imagination) with the crowd of nondescript furry shadows/the guy at the bottom being the voyeur in the former and latter respectively.

Technically, yes, it would be, bu..

hmm

the presenting tag is more about the viewer seeing the character's ass, in an invitation to fuck them. or maybe another character, whatever.

exhibitionism is about being exposed in public. but it's not always about showing off bits. For example: post #136012 ? totally presenting, if a bit odd :) post #108915 too.... but.. post #130414 isn't really 'presenting'.. nor post #101630 or post #113872 or.. well.. a lot of them

123easy said:
any case of exhibitionism is technically also a case of presenting.

ex·hi·bi·tion·ism
noun /ˌeksəˈbiSHəˌnizəm/ 

1.) Extravagant behavior that is intended to attract attention to oneself

2.) A mental condition characterized by the compulsion to display one's genitals in public

Define Presenting

Show or offer (something) for others to scrutinize or consider
- he stopped and presented his passport

---------------

So it could be assumed that one is presenting their genitals in public, via pure definition. But, as the term presenting is used on the site is an invitation for sex, not always in public.

Long story short, one could be engaging in exhibitionism while not offering the chance for sex.

This implication is incorrect, however it already doesn't matter because the deed is done.

Exhibitionism in the second sense is what is used here, as it is in direct reference to the sexual characteristics of exhibitionism.

Presenting is shown here not to be simply offering for sex (as far as I can see) but (to quote the wiki), "When one poses in such a way as to show off sexual anatomy, usually to entice one to make use of that anatomy" which follows the synonymical to offer definition of the word; "To offer for observation, examination, or consideration; show or display". while exhibitionism-tagged pictures may not always be about enticing someone to make use of that anatomy, it is still showcasing said anatomy to at least one other individual.

SnowWolf: Actually, the first you say isn't really presenting looks like the... hybrid whatever-he-is is presenting to the viewer, as he's looking pretty much at us. In the second, it's not as much the female presenting herself to view as the male presenting her- does that make sense? And in the last, he definitely does look like he's showing off his boy toy to the viewer, as in the first.

I fixed a typo so that all of my links work, by the by. whoops.

The problem is, by that arguement, almost EVERY image on here that shows off anatomy in any way. So by your arguement, almost every picture should be exhibitionist and presenting... as we never know if there's someone behind the "camera" or not

Exhibitionism is best defined, of course, by the presence of other people in the picture watching, or possibly by the risk of being caught (not sure if we have a different tag for that, or if it counts as a different fetish, or what.

Presenting is.. seems to be.. in 95% of cases a specific posture legs spread, bent over, orifices aimed right for the camera, or the other person in the image... have a look through presenting yourself...

Maybe the wiki for presenting or both needs to be rewriten?

Exhibitionism is not so much about showing off genitalia, but of doing so for sexual gratification. Thus anyone who is currently partaking of some exhibitionism is displaying their parts, or presenting them. It's not about the pose, but about the actual meaning.

Presenting may be tagged to such pictures (the ones with that specific posture), but unless we want to redevelop the tag, they're only a portion of images that should be tagged as presenting by its definition. If that means that it should be tagged more because it's not being used to standards- then I'll start working on that. But I'm not going to go and start doing something of the sort due to personal opinion; I'd need general agreement/admin agreement on doing so first.

Also, it's a large portion of gay subby males presenting that bring that pose to dominance. There's really only one way for them to do so easily while portraying that subby aspect >_>.

123easy said:
Exhibitionism is not so much about showing off genitalia, but of doing so for sexual gratification. Thus anyone who is currently partaking of some exhibitionism is displaying their parts, or presenting them. It's not about the pose, but about the actual meaning.

You don't have to be presenting yourself to be exhibiting yourself.

That makes absolutely no sense. Seriously- think what you just said over again.

technically, your'e right, hun, but can you think of a better word for the act of ... well, whatever presenting is right now? presenting one's self to your lover?

Hm.

we have presenting and inviting and also spread legs...
and all of those are a little different. Inviting has a number of beckoning and "insert cock here" type images as well... perhaps presenting could be lumped into inviting, but then some don't really apply: post #137697 is more 'look but don't touch'(so it half applies) post #137062 is more 'incidental angle' post #131991 isn't really inviting either, as one seems to be doing it for herself, the other is displeased--no inviting there....

as far as spread legs goes, that's more of a positional then a "mood" so it has a lot of overlap, but shouldn't be lumped in anywhere..

but I do maintain that exhibitionism shouldn't imply presenting. By dictionary words, yes. by the current word of the wiki, technically. By the spirit, though, no.

I'd say that post #137697 is exhibitionism; She was the one to initiate, and is clearly enjoying the teasing, even if it's not with intent to use.

post #137062 shouldn't be tagged presenting, because as you said it's more an incidental angle; She doesn't look like she's presenting purposefully. Here spread_legs fulfills the entire aspect of that (though spreading doesn't really apply).

Agreed entirely on post #131991 too.

Spread_legs currently implies spreading, while spreading is defined as the mood- Open leg invitation showing sexual receptiveness. I think that it should be reversed- spreading implying spread_legs, not the other way around, since if they're spreading in the mood, they're spreading their legs, but if they're spreading their legs, they aren't necessarily in the mood. post #123461 and post #29071 both have spread legs, for example, but aren't spreading/presenting.

Why do you say that by the spirit exhibitionism shouldn't imply presenting?

What about post #135190 where the pussy is being spread, but not the legs? There are others like this where the anus, pussy, or just ass cheeks are being spread while legs are not. Granted in most cases, the legs are also being spread, but not all. So unless other changes are made, spreading should not imply spread_legs.

As of right now, it seems like presenting is in a weird spot between exhibitionism and inviting. Obviously, not all characters presenting are doing so as an invitation, they're just flaunting. However, exhibitionism is showing things to others for your own arousal, whereas presenting seems to be doing so for someone else's arousal. That's my own interpretation, anyway. I realise that that's rather subjective and can be exceedingly hard to determine from the picture.

presenting's spirit seems to be more of an invitation to fuck, or at least have a close look. It is, in 99% of cases, involved in an image where the camera is getting a good close look at the warm holes involved.

and.. *pauses, spends an hours adding solo to about half the imiages that popped up when searching presenting -solo* ahem, where was i?

Presenting seems like "synonyms could be "genital_view" "good_view" etc.

Presenting would be present in some exhibitionistic pieces, but not others. It's enough to make it so that they really shouldn't be implicated together.

the spreading, thing, though...

spreading baffles me as a tag, honestly. the wiki says "to open for access".. and generally seems to suggest the legs. that said... we have spread_legs, we have spread_pussy, and spread_butt, spread_anus (which seems to refer to the actual orifice as opposed to the cheeks, and should be kept as an extra tag)

it seems that all of those should suggest spreading.. and we change the definition of spreading to be something to the effect of "the act of spreading one's legs, pussy lips, butt cheeks or anus. Often, but not always a form of presenting. and get rid of the "mood" modifier

As of right now, it seems like presenting is in a weird spot between exhibitionism and inviting. Obviously, not all characters presenting are doing so as an invitation, they're just flaunting. However, exhibitionism is showing things to others for your own arousal, whereas presenting seems to be doing so for someone else's arousal. That's my own interpretation, anyway. I realise that that's rather subjective and can be exceedingly hard to determine from the picture.

wow.. what' a wonderful sum up of how I feel on the matter, actually :D

If someone's showing themselves off for someone else's arousal, they're also getting off on it, and thus exhibitionism- That's how I see it. But I can understand your point of views. I think that what you've described is a good compromise and is more accurate in the end anyways.

123easy said:
If someone's showing themselves off for someone else's arousal, they're also getting off on it, and thus exhibitionism.

Not quite. If, for example, I strip for my partner in order to arouse them, I might become aroused myself at the act of exhibiting myself, or I might become aroused knowing that my partner is turned on by me. It's only exhibitionism if the act itself is causing the arousing, whereas it's simply presenting if the arousal is from something else, i.e. partner's arousal. Does that make any sense or have I simply muddled it further? lol

Also, some strippers may be not only not particularly exhibitionist (that is, while they aren't shy about showing themselves, they don't get hot on it), they may also not get off on their audience's arousal. You could probably argue that this is just from being jaded by repeated experience, but nonetheless, you can present, and even enjoy presenting, yourself to others without actually being aroused by it.

well... showing yourself off for, say, your partner is natural. You're not a voyeur for enjoying looking at your partner, after all. I've always looked at exhibitionism as doing it for /strangers/ or in public.. :D

but cool, I'm glad we've kinda come to an agreement :D

123easy said:
That makes absolutely no sense. Seriously- think what you just said over again.

No it makes total sense, you and a partner can be exhibiting to others.. it does not mean you are presenting to them.

Sometimes sex is just for show :3

Presenting is not inviting. Exhibiting something is the same as presenting something. You can see the same things at an exhibition as at a presentation. "To offer for observation, examination, or consideration; show or display" or "To turn or position in the direction of another" which is EXACTLY what exhibitionism is, with the specific addition of it being your nude body which is being presented, and getting turned on by the situation. There is no specific "turn towards your partner and spread yourself just to show you're wanting sex right now" definition. That is entirely a product of improper usage of the word.

Thus the more indepth explanation of my view.

I'm still willing to accept Snow's compromise, though.

123easy said:
Presenting is not inviting. Exhibiting something is the same as presenting something. You can see the same things at an exhibition as at a presentation. "To offer for observation, examination, or consideration; show or display" or "To turn or position in the direction of another" which is EXACTLY what exhibitionism is, with the specific addition of it being your nude body which is being presented, and getting turned on by the situation. There is no specific "turn towards your partner and spread yourself just to show you're wanting sex right now" definition. That is entirely a product of improper usage of the word.

Thus the more indepth explanation of my view.

I'm still willing to accept Snow's compromise, though.

The part I put in bold is the important bit. That is exactly what distinguishes exhibitionism from simply "presenting." I'd say exhibitionism still shouldn't even imply presenting, as some exhibitionist acts aren't even really showing off for someone else's inspection. Sometimes, even, exhibitionism takes the form of being aroused by being in a compromising situation (i.e. masturbating, having sex) in a public place because of the possibility of being found out, not even that there's someone there to see.

post #142207 is an example of both exhibitionism and presenting. She's on a city bus, which is a public place, but she's also pretty clearly showing her pussy for a single individual, i.e. the viewer, rather than just being out there for all to see. She's presenting.

post #130414 however, isn't really presenting. They're having sex on the beach in front of everyone, so it's clearly exhibitionism. But it doesn't quite seem like they're really putting it out there for anyone else to observe or inspect, they're just doing it for their own arousal.

This is why I said "presenting" is in a weird place and is somewhat subjective lol.

I realize at this point the discussion is academic as we seem to have come to an agreement about what Snow put forward, but I still enjoy the discussion for its own sake :-D

I edited spreading and the related tags.. :) also tagged a shit ton of solo images that had been lacking the 'solo' tag c_c

also added:
spread_butt implies spreading
spread_anus implies spreading

remind me what our compromise was for exhibition and stuff, so I can make sure we're all on the same page, and so that anyone who's just now tuning in from home can have it all up in one place :)

SnowWolf said:
The spreading, thing, though...

spreading baffles me as a tag, honestly. the wiki says "to open for access".. and generally seems to suggest the legs. that said... we have spread_legs, we have spread_pussy, and spread_butt, spread_anus (which seems to refer to the actual orifice as opposed to the cheeks, and should be kept as an extra tag)

it seems that all of those should suggest spreading.. and we change the definition of spreading to be something to the effect of "the act of spreading one's legs, pussy lips, butt cheeks or anus. Often, but not always a form of presenting. and get rid of the "mood" modifier

RedOctober: yes, that IS the important part. Exhibitionism is Presenting, WITH ADDED BITS. Thus, any time you're taking part in exhibitionism, you're also presenting. The first post and the second are the same but for there being random furs behind the couple in the latter- Both are spread and showing towards the viewer, so trying to say they're separate things is a falsehood. Even in the case of someone being an exhibitionist in a solo environment, such as in a public alley but with no one about at the moment, or in a public bathroom, etc. etc. the thrill is there from the chance of someone seeing them- They WANT to be seen, and thus, they are exhibiting/presenting themselves to whomever might see them, and getting off knowing people might be/are watching.

123easy said:
RedOctober: yes, that IS the important part. Exhibitionism is Presenting, WITH ADDED BITS. Thus, any time you're taking part in exhibitionism, you're also presenting. The first post and the second are the same but for there being random furs behind the couple in the latter- Both are spread and showing towards the viewer, so trying to say they're separate things is a falsehood. Even in the case of someone being an exhibitionist in a solo environment, such as in a public alley but with no one about at the moment, or in a public bathroom, etc. etc. the thrill is there from the chance of someone seeing them- They WANT to be seen, and thus, they are exhibiting/presenting themselves to whomever might see them, and getting off knowing people might be/are watching.

Meh. All right. You've convinced me.

alright, well, I fixed the spreading things (go me!)

presenting just seems more like an invitation. if someone's already engaged in sec, they're *probably* not inviting anyone else to join in. and tha'ts how I interret presenting .. a 'here's a good look, want some?" while exhibition is more I get off on doing this in public where you CAN see me.

and actually I would say an alley or a bathroom would be public not exhibitionist. While in real life, having sex in that sort of place for a thrill might count, I think the 'risk of getting caught' is not really exhibitionist so much as it is exciting.

The thing is, in an image it's hard to tell if a couple is "oh, hurry, before someone comes in" or "this is so hot, someone might come in" which is why most iamges tags exhibitionist are clearly out there in public. it's a fantasy since most of us don't get to have public sex. but might fantisize about doing it right there at the bus stop.

anyway... it's kind of a gentle moot point by now isn't it?

Presenting in the context we are talking about is a zoological term of inviting another animal to breed with them.

Exhibitionism is a fetish term of having others view sex as a spectacle not exactly focusing on the sexual organs.

You don't need to be presenting in order to be in the process of exhibiting.

123easy, it's okay to be wrong you know.

I already said I accept the compromise. :P I'm just stating where I'm coming from and responding to others' posts, as the debate is purely academic at this point.

-1; presenting can be done in private, to one's lover. Exhibitionism never can. Neither implies the other, neither should be aliased to the other.

(And it might be one of mine partly. I tend to use fairly animalistic terms for fun, and in this case I've generally meant somefur presenting their nether regions to the viewer. Exhibitionism is any sort of going nude or partially nude in public: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhibitionism )

...Anom, I'm starting to be convinced you're an idiot. This is not, nor ever has been, "Presenting implies exhibitionism". Exhibitionism is presenting, done publically. It doesn't get any more simplistic a description than that.

Anomynous said:
-1; presenting can be done in private, to one's lover. Exhibitionism never can.

Not true. Some exhibitionists are satisfied simply masturbating for their partner, or get aroused seeing their partner watching them take a shower, that sort of thing. It can be done in private, with one's lover and no one else. I'd hazard that a lot of people who have mild exhibitionist desires can get their kicks in this manner without risking being caught by an authority in public and facing genuine trouble.

123easy said:
...Anom, I'm starting to be convinced you're an idiot. This is not, nor ever has been, "Presenting implies exhibitionism". Exhibitionism is presenting, done publically. It doesn't get any more simplistic a description than that.

For an academic debate, this is becoming very heated.

Exhibitionism can be done without presenting genitals for sex, in the sense Aurali described and the sense I have always used the tag. Streaking, flashing, or public nudity are examples. Therefore exhibitionism should not imply presenting. The fact that I point out that the opposite doesn't make any sense either is neither here nor there.

RedOctober said:
Not true. Some exhibitionists are satisfied simply masturbating for their partner, or get aroused seeing their partner watching them take a shower, that sort of thing. It can be done in private, with one's lover and no one else.

Okay up to a point - I'll back down on the public aspect, on reflection. But not merely with one's lover: I think there ought to be some element of social transgression in the definition.

I'd hazard that a lot of people who have mild exhibitionist desires can get their kicks in this manner without risking being caught by an authority in public and facing genuine trouble.

I've always interpreted any slight possibility of that as a necessary part of the kink. But since it's a fetish I don't share, I can see how it may be a continuum, with what you describe as the shallow end.

But if you apply that sort of thinking to all fetishes - all of which have shallow ends - where does it get you for tagging stuff? Not very far when you blur the meaning. But perhaps mild_ or light_ prefixes would help out and keep everyone happy?

Anomynous said:
For an academic debate, this is becoming very heated.

Exhibitionism can be done without presenting genitals for sex, in the sense Aurali described and the sense I have always used the tag. Streaking, flashing, or public nudity are examples. Therefore exhibitionism should not imply presenting. The fact that I point out that the opposite doesn't make any sense either is neither here nor there.

I stated that I'm coming to think you an idiot because you made three posts in a row on three different topics semingly without bothering to actually read the discussion going on in the thread before posting- Or if you did, you ignored it completely and just posed based on the first post and/or the thread name. To quote what you stated, "-1; presenting can be done in private, to one's lover. Exhibitionism never can. Neither implies the other, neither should be aliased to the other." Re-read it. The read the title. Here, in this line, you're stating that because exhibitionism cannot be done in private to another's lover, that it cannot be presenting, because presenting can classify things that aren't exhibitionism. That. is. Stupid.

Description as listed on the Wiki page for presenting: "An image with this tag features a character posed in such a way as to show off their sexual anatomy. This may be to entice another character to make use of it, or for display to the "camera"."

Aurali stated: "Presenting in the context we are talking about is a zoological term of inviting another animal to breed with them."

Now, I dunno about you, but the definition Aurali's using here is not the one that has been presented (heh) as the basis for the tags use. The basis for the tags use as stated by the wiki is the same as the purpose of exhibitionism, with some additions as I already outlined in this thread- Eleven posts from the bottom, first page.

I always thought that exhibitionism meant sexual behavior in public. This implication is wrong because people can have sex in public without any presenting.
post #27124
post #91378
These 2 images show exhibitionism, but no presenting, meaning that an implication is out of the question. Just manually tag instances where it happens, and remember that not every exhibitionism image will have presenting.

123easy said:
Description as listed on the Wiki page for presenting: "An image with this tag features a character posed in such a way as to show off their sexual anatomy. This may be to entice another character to make use of it, or for display to the "camera"."

Aurali stated: "Presenting in the context we are talking about is a zoological term of inviting another animal to breed with them."

Now, I dunno about you, but the definition Aurali's using here is not the one that has been presented (heh) as the basis for the tags use. The basis for the tags use as stated by the wiki is the same as the purpose of exhibitionism, with some additions as I already outlined in this thread- Eleven posts from the bottom, first page.

It looks like the wiki says presenting is almost exactly inviting. Or at least it COULD be inviting. I'm going to try to outline a specific proposal.

Inviting implies nothing, as there are images where the character is giving a "come hither" without showing anything off.

Presenting implies nothing, as there are images where a character is "showing off" but is neither clearly doing so as an invitation nor to get themselves off. They may be doing one or the other, but intention is not always clear in an image.

Exhibitionism implies nothing, as there are instances of sexual acts in public but no characters are actively presenting themselves to others outside of those engaging in the sexual acts.

The Wiki page should be edited to reflect the fact that presenting is not necessarily for sexual acts.

Finally, my main reason for stating that nothing should imply anything else is because if we can have such a long, in-depth discussion and come to no consensus, it's probably best the tags are left as is.

The other option is setting presenting to an invalid_tag and just using either inviting or exhibitionism. A crude compromise, but it could suffice. We do all seem to feel like presenting is either in between the two or is at least partially one or the other.

I'm not attempting to arguing with you, 123easy, just responding to the original proposal. You seem to be overreacting horribly.

http://www.e621.net/wiki/show?title=presenting - it's been documented the way myself and Aurali have described it since late 2009, and was very recently changed to be a bit broader and much better English by SnowWolf.

I have conceded that exhibitionism may be non-public too. But I feel - and this is based on a kink I don't share so correct me if I'm wrong - that if it isn't then some sort of social transgression needs to be in there to cover the "extravagant" or "mental condition" part of ExplosiveBlaziken's post. Maybe it's a private gathering you want to disrupt by walking through it naked? Perhaps you want to tempt being walked in by housemates on while fucking in the living room for the thrill of it (even if there's only a remote possibility of them returning soon)? Like I say, not really a fetish I share, not a sexologist here.

To spell it out more clearly, something can be BOTH presenting (showing off one's genitals in a pretty unambiguous fuck/suck me now manner) AND exhibitionism (doing the above in a crowded shopping mall for onlookers to see). Or you can have exhibitionism which is NOT presenting (Ultima Weapon's post). You can also have presenting which is NOT exhibitionism, albeit with my caveat about the social transgression involved. I'm sort of treating "to one's lover" as something a bit more intimate than merely the social sphere.

Having two tags which are not linked by automated implications or aliases is, as ever, better for shading and nuances of meaning. And I'll leave it at that, noting that, as ever, established usage on e621 may trump any argument.

For all of the morons who'd rather pick their ass than read Anon's post, he's basically stating what should have been common sense: not every instance of exhibitionism has presenting, and vice versa. Come on people, do better.

Ultima_Weapon said:
For all of the morons who'd rather pick their ass than read Anon's post, he's basically stating what should have been common sense: not every instance of exhibitionism has presenting, and vice versa. Come on people, do better.

There's no need for insulting. It's only "common sense" if it's actually common. If there's a wide difference of opinion on something, then it probably isn't "common sense." Most of this debate, if you'd care to pull your finger out and read it? is about what exactly constitutes the differences between exhibitionism, presenting, and inviting, NOT strictly which one should imply the other. Yes, the title is "Exhibitionism to presenting," based on what 123easy understood the definition of the two words to be. Discussion ensued wherein each person's reasons for finding each word to mean what they think it means were laid out. You presented your evidence, and I agree with it. Nonetheless, name-calling is just silly.

ITT tl;dr all around and waving your cock around in public regardless. Myself included. One person who isn't though is:

RedOctober said:
Finally, my main reason for stating that nothing should imply anything else is because if we can have such a long, in-depth discussion and come to no consensus, it's probably best the tags are left as is.

This. In almost every case, IMO. Let the consensus emerge naturally and don't try to force it with aliases or implications. Since none of us are omniscient about word usage.

RedOctober said:...

That's not even remotely insulting, as i'm not targeting anyone in specific, and I didn't even bother to mention inviting, because people seemed to be able to differentiate that from presenting just by the name alone, but it looks like things have changed in the past few months.

RedOctober said:
Finally, my main reason for stating that nothing should imply anything else is because if we can have such a long, in-depth discussion and come to no consensus, it's probably best the tags are left as is.

well said and agreed.. I"m tired of this arguement and your suggestion of changing nothing seems *best* :D

Ultima_Weapon said:
I didn't even bother to mention inviting, because people seemed to be able to differentiate that from presenting just by the name alone, but it looks like things have changed in the past few months.

no, we can differenciate well enough. presenting and inviting being merged was, I belive, a very brief idea.

SnowWolf said:
well said and agreed.. I"m tired of this arguement and your suggestion of changing nothing seems *best* :D

no, we can differenciate well enough. presenting and inviting being merged was, I belive, a very brief idea.

I remember it being brought up somewhere while back, some people gave constructive thoughts and criticisms, while most bitched.