So, like why isn't there a "reverse_cowboy" tag, that's you know, the male counterpart for it? Same with reverse_cowgirl_position? I know it's just a position, but I thought it would make sense to have a separate tag for gay/male penetration.

Gayteensex said:
So, like why isn't there a "reverse_cowboy" tag, that's you know, the male counterpart for it? Same with reverse_cowgirl_position? I know it's just a position, but I thought it would make sense to have a separate tag for gay/male penetration.

I don't feel like we need to differentiate between genders, as the position is the same.

The position is known as the "Reverse Cowgirl", not the "Reverse Cowperson" or "Reverse Cowboy", because that's what it's called. Anything else is a variant of the original position and thus doesn't need to be tagged specifically for that with an individual tag. Gay couple doing reverse cowgirl? reverse_cowgirl, male, and gay. Voila!

Well, it exists:
http://e621.net/tag?name=reverse*cow*&type=&order=date&commit=Search

trfg7xz2oxps said:
Well, it exists:
http://e621.net/tag?name=reverse*cow*&type=&order=date&commit=Search

Not no more.

I guess an alias isn't really needed here... I mean, it's not that big of a deal. Yet.
Another thing that I think about the cowgirl_position tags are that they should imply sex, and penetration. After all, it is a sexual act.

It doesn't necessarily imply penetration.

post #148677

So.... just start tagging it reverse_cowgirl_position and cowgirl_position regardless of sexuality.

Gayteensex said:
So.... just start tagging it reverse_cowgirl_position and cowgirl_position regardless of sexuality.

Yes, there is no "reverse_cowBOY_position" tag. It's just called reverse cowgirl position, regardless of genders involved.

tony311 said:
It doesn't necessarily imply penetration.

post #148677

That isn't even sex.
Nothing's going in anywhere.
...In fact, I'm doubtful that even qualifies as the cowgirl position.

See, the cowgirl position is a sexual position. Which implies it is a sexual act. Which implies sex.
The receiving partner has to 'ride' on the other partner's penis. Like a cowgirl. No riding, no cowgirl. That picture is better suited to some sort of "before_sex" tag. It does not qualify for cowgirl_position. That tag does not belong on that image.
I will make plans to add the sex implication... if there are no further objections.

Riversyde said:
That isn't even sex.
Nothing's going in anywhere.
...In fact, I'm doubtful that even qualifies as the cowgirl position.

See, the cowgirl position is a sexual position. Which implies it is a sexual act. Which implies sex.
The receiving partner has to 'ride' on the other partner's penis. Like a cowgirl. No riding, no cowgirl. That picture is better suited to some sort of "before_sex" tag. It does not qualify for cowgirl_position. That tag does not belong on that image.

Uh...yeah, that's sex. And yes, that's the cowgirl position. Even if there isn't any actual penetration happening.

tony311 said:
Uh...yeah, that's sex. And yes, that's the cowgirl position. Even if there isn't any actual penetration happening.

Actually, there's no sex happening there. That's just a straddle.

I love seeing admins argue with each other. It warms my heart.

Well technically, fourth definition of sex: "4. The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior." Now, while there may not be any coitus going on there, there definitely is sexual urge/instinct being displayed/illustrated. So, technically, that's sex. :3

Literal-trolling aside, the position does not require sex. While yes, it is classified as primarily a sexual position, the only requirement is actually for the body positioning, with the to-be recipient atop the to-be giver. No coitus actually has to occur for it to be a valid representation of the position.

Ultima_Weapon said:
Actually, there's no sex happening there. That's just a straddle.

Too right. No sex. Not even the cowgirl position.

123easy said:
Literal-trolling aside, the position does not require sex. While yes, it is classified as primarily a sexual position, the only requirement is actually for the body positioning, with the to-be recipient atop the to-be giver. No coitus actually has to occur for it to be a valid representation of the position.

So tony is wrong then.
She's clearly not aligned in the position defined as the cowgirl position.

I see no need to require penetration to call it cowgirl_position. We've already established that you can have sex without penetration, and requiring penetration to call it cowgirl_position is just being extremely specific for no reason.

Cowgirl position = one person on back, another person straddling their waist, facing them (facing away = reverse_cowgirl_position). End of story. Who the hell cares if there's penetration or not.

In my last post, I did not mention there had to be penetration. I said she was not in the right position. In the picture, she's just straddling him. His penis is rubbing against her clitoris, which is frottage, which is sexual activity. So according to 123easy's troll-definition, and you, tony, frottage is sex.
Regardless, it's still not the cowgirl position. It's straddling and frottage.

Riversyde said:
I did not mention there had to be penetration.

In that case, I was wrong. I always pegged cowgirl_position with penetration. Basically:

Cowgirl_position - facing the straddlee while they're on their back.

Reverse_cowgirl_position - facing away from the straddlee while they're on their back.

Upright_straddle - facing the straddlee while they're sitting up.

Reverse_upright_straddle - why don't we have this tag?

All still count for straddle.

Ultima_Weapon said:
In that case, I was wrong. I always pegged cowgirl_position with penetration.

Well, half-wrong. Being in the cowgirl position is sexual activity.
The point I am trying to make to tony is she does not have her genitals at the correct angle for penetration. At this moment, she is just on top of him. It classifies for woman on top, but not the cowgirl position.

Ultima_Weapon said:
Cowgirl_position - facing the straddlee while they're on their back.

Sorry, but this is wrong. Read the former paragraph.

Riversyde said:
she does not have her genitals at the correct angle for penetration.

What? The angle the girl is in for tony's image is fine, but there's just no penetration happening. What "angle" are you looking at? Drunk bro?

Ultima_Weapon said:
What? The angle the girl is in for tony's image is fine, but there's just no penetration happening. What "angle" are you looking at? Drunk bro?

I'm looking at where her pussy is in relation to where his dick is.
There is no way he could insert his dick in her pussy the way they are positioned.
What I am seeing is woman_on_top, frottage and sex. Based on my understanding of the cowgirl situation, it is not happening.

And I am not drunk. Just, uh... really really confused about what to think. I see the position as having one strict definition, then in come all these conflicting and contradictory arguments that don't gel with my understanding.
Maybe I'm just way off-track with this...

Riversyde said:
I'm looking at where her pussy is in relation to where his dick is.
There is no way he could insert his dick in her pussy the way they are positioned.

If you look closer, her body is pushing his cock back a little. If she lifts up for a second, penetration would occur if she sat back down.

Riversyde said:
And I am not drunk. Just, uh... really really confused about what to think. I see the position as having one strict definition, then in come all these conflicting and contradictory arguments that don't gel with my understanding.
Maybe I'm just way off-track with this...

Nah you're drunk. There's no shame in admitting it. It's okay to get disentegrated on Captain Morgan every now and then. But I also strictly see cowgirl_position as girl_on_top+on_back+penetration.

I'm telling you, I'm not drunk. Just completely and utterly wrong.
I have no excuses for being as difficult as I was.

Riversyde said:
I'm telling you, I'm not drunk. Just completely and utterly wrong.
I have no excuses for being as difficult as I was.

You weren't being difficult, you were just confused, as was I at first. And you weren't completeley wrong because cowgirl_position is supposed to be be strictly for sex, and not for naked straddling.

Ultima_Weapon said:
You weren't being difficult, you were just confused, as was I at first. And you weren't completeley wrong because cowgirl_position is supposed to be be strictly for sex, and not for naked straddling.

I would question tony on this matter if it were not for what I said in the pony =/= horse thread.
Another perplexing matter is the cowgirl position wiki. It relays my original idea, but it contradicts tony. Given that the wiki contains the perimeters that define when a tag is to be used on the site, tony was wrong all along. The wiki itself is also very wrong. Hasn't seen much use either.
I'm making a separate thread to discuss how to define it.

I'm just gonna chip in and say we don't need a cowboy_position tag or any variant. It'll be pretty obvious it's gay if you see the tag "gay."

RedOctober said:
I'm just gonna chip in and say we don't need a cowboy_position tag or any variant. It'll be pretty obvious it's gay if you see the tag "gay."

1. Not everyone tags their shit.
2. Androgyny (or however you spell that) can be present.

Gayteensex said:
1. Not everyone tags their shit.
2. Androgyny (or however you spell that) can be present.

1. True. But that's the case with all things. Not tagging shit isn't a sufficient reason to increase specificity. If it's not tagged with "gay," you really think it's going to be tagged with the even-more-specific "cowboy_position?"

2. It's true. But in that case, "cowboy_position" is also not applicable. "Cowandrogynouscharacter_position?" "Cowmaybeboymaybegirl_position?" I still think "cowgirl_position" should remain the name of the tag, as that's just the name of the position. If you're looking for androgynous or male characters in that position, it's easy enough to search for "cowgirl_position -female."