reason: autofellatio is sucking one's own penis, therefore, a penis must be showing to tag an image as autofellatio.

+1 vote. Makes sense.

-1, penis is not necessarily visible if it's deep-throated enough.

Anomynous said:
-1, penis is not necessarily visible if it's deep-throated enough.

I don't think I've seen this done, even in the furry universe, I'd think deep throating your own penis would be a back breaking task to say the least.

Anomynous said:
-1, penis is not necessarily visible if it's deep-throated enough.

Highly situational.

Situational or not, we should tag what we see. If the person's back is to me and I can't see the dick, and it's implied that he's deepthroating himself, or if he's got it all the way in his mouth and I can't see dick, then penis shouldn't be tagged because I still can't see the dick. We should just manually tag this one.

If the back is to you in such a way that you can't see that he's chocking his own dick down, then you can't tell he's a male and that autofellatio is even going on in the first place because of the stupid angle that'd require.

Stupid argument is stupid.

123easy said:
If the back is to you in such a way that you can't see that he's chocking his own dick down, then you can't tell he's a male and that autofellatio is even going on in the first place because of the stupid angle that'd require.

Stupid argument is stupid.

Ultima_Weapon said:
and it's implied that he's deepthroating himself

Also his back can be at an angle where you can tell he's a man by facial features and lack of breasts. But that's just one situation. Like Anom said, if someone's deepthroating the whole thing, you can't see it.

post #113903 post #12438 post #113260 (Ew on that last...)

These are the THREE Deepthroat autofellatio pictures we have. And in each one, dick. You'd have to break their back and shove their snout into the crotch and clamp the mouth down around it so that he'd be basically biting it off for there to be no visible indication of a cock in autofellatio.

Thus, my statement of stupid argument. If you can't tell that it's a cock, you can't tell it's autofellatio.

-1 disagree.
autofellatio -> fellatio -> penis

123easy said:
Thus, my statement of stupid argument.

I don't see anyone else arguing, so it might just be you.

123easy said:
If you can't tell that it's a cock, you can't tell it's autofellatio.

That's the gist of what I already said.

Ultima_Weapon said:
I don't see anyone else arguing, so it might just be you.

That's the gist of what I already said.

Except you're saying, and I quote, "If he's got it all the way in his mouth and I can't see dick, then penis shouldn't be tagged because I still can't see the dick. We should just manually tag this one."

If you can't see the penis, then you can't tag it autofellatio then, can you?

There is no case where you can tell it's autofellatio without being able to tell that a dick is being sucked. As lyokira put simply, autofellatio = fellatio = penis. Autofellatio effectively implies fellatio which effectively implies penis. there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

123easy said:
There is no case where you can tell it's autofellatio without being able to tell that a dick is being sucked. As lyokira put simply, autofellatio = fellatio = penis. Autofellatio effectively implies fellatio which effectively implies penis. there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

The autofellatio -> fellatio implication was made a while ago, but Char thought it was stupid and deleted it :/

123easy said:
Except you're saying, and I quote, "If he's got it all the way in his mouth and I can't see dick, then penis shouldn't be tagged because I still can't see the dick. We should just manually tag this one."

If you can't see the penis, then you can't tag it autofellatio then, can you?

There is no case where you can tell it's autofellatio without being able to tell that a dick is being sucked. As lyokira put simply, autofellatio = fellatio = penis. Autofellatio effectively implies fellatio which effectively implies penis. there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I thought we were supposed to tag all that we see? This is like saying male implies penis and female implies breasts. You can have a picture of someone grabbing another person's ass. Based on the angle, we might not explicitly see the other person's ass, but we can tell it's getting grabbed. 'S kinda like that.

Ultima_Weapon said:
I thought we were supposed to tag all that we see? This is like saying male implies penis and female implies breasts. You can have a picture of someone grabbing another person's ass. Based on the angle, we might not explicitly see the other person's ass, but we can tell it's getting grabbed. 'S kinda like that.

oh how I wish female implied breasts...then my blacklist would work correctly.

Ultima_Weapon said:
I thought we were supposed to tag all that we see? This is like saying male implies penis and female implies breasts. You can have a picture of someone grabbing another person's ass. Based on the angle, we might not explicitly see the other person's ass, but we can tell it's getting grabbed. 'S kinda like that.

No, it's not like saying male implies penis but rather than sucking one's own penis (autofellatio) implies sucking on penis (fellatio) implies penis (penis).

cookiekangaroo said:
oh how I wish female implied breasts...then my blacklist would work correctly.

Except that breasts only applies to certain mammals (and some birds), while gender applies to a broader spectrum.

Ultima_Weapon said:
I thought we were supposed to tag all that we see? This is like saying male implies penis and female implies breasts. You can have a picture of someone grabbing another person's ass. Based on the angle, we might not explicitly see the other person's ass, but we can tell it's getting grabbed. 'S kinda like that.

There's this nagging issue of implications, in that implied objects aren't necessarily visible or actually present in the image. We may need to rethink the whole concept of implications if so.

The easiest solution however, is that for your said example, it should NOT be tagged ass_grab, since the actual ass grabbing isn't seen.

Lyokira said:
Except that breasts only applies to certain mammals, while gender applies to a broader spectrum.
There's this nagging issue of implications, in that implied objects aren't necessarily visible or actually present in the image. We may need to rethink the whole concept of implications if so.

The easiest solution however, is that for your said example, it should NOT be tagged ass_grab, since the actual ass grabbing isn't seen.

But still, if I can see someone's hand down on someone's assular region, I could safely imply say that it's a grab, even though I don't see the ass in question. But we should re-think implications. i'm still suprised that vaginal and anal don't imply sex.

Lyokira said:
Except that breasts only applies to certain mammals (and some birds), while gender applies to a broader spectrum.

However this is a site based on anthropmorphization. Breasts are a human characteristic, so they're applicable here even when they wouldn't be in real-life. Besides, there are plenty of other sexually dimorphic traits for humans and other animals. If a character is severely lacking in them or the ones they have are in conflict, we have the ambiguous_gender tag for that.

Ultima_Weapon said:
But still, if I can see someone's hand down on someone's assular region, I could safely imply say that it's a grab, even though I don't see the ass in question.

It could just as easily interpreted as spank or a slap in a lot of cases.

But we should re-think implications. i'm still suprised that vaginal and anal don't imply sex.

Vaginal and anal penetration be a form of masturbation. Things like these are the reason possible implications are always brought up in the forums before they're implemented, and why mods are careful not to create too many of them.

KloH0und said:
However this is a site based on anthropmorphization. Breasts are a human characteristic, so they're applicable here even when they wouldn't be in real-life. Besides, there are plenty of other sexually dimorphic traits for humans and other animals. If a character is severely lacking in them or the ones they have are in conflict, we have the ambiguous_gender tag for that.

Anthropomorphization comes in many forms, they do not only apply to the human sexual shape. Not to mention this site is not only for anthropomorphism. And there're many ways which would presumably clearly state gender without having to have breasts.
1) Udders aren't considered breasts in the conventional sense, but are predominantly only found on females. One can safely assume that a normal looking cow (with udder) is female.
2) Oviposition in general is the domain of females. An avian, reptile, or monotreme laying an egg, without any other distinguishing factors, should be rightly considered female.
3) Speaking of which, there're plenty of non-bodily factors which can be used to determine gender. Such as a married couple, parenting, female-specific bathroom, hive queen/breeder...
4) Just because it is implied doesn't mean there's an actual visual on the breasts. Since it can't be seen in any sense, it should not be tagged.

Examples: post #25107