Implicating bisexual -> male and female.

Reason: Bisexual means attracted to both genders. So both genders must be in the picture for a character to be having bisexual sex. As it says on the wiki, "A character's sexual orientation, attracted to, or participating in sex with both males and females."

But what if a character is known to be bisexual but is either solo or engaged in a straight/homosexual encounter specifically in that image?" Is this more looking for a per-image clarification, period? Because I know a lot of characters consider themselves bisexual, and as such there's quite a bit of art that is labelled bisexual even if there is no one else in the image- Sort of like the commissioner of a solo male pic claiming that it was gay because he was.

What they're doing has to be bisexual. If they're not doing something bisexual, then it should not be tagged bisexual. If someone's character does identify as bisexual, and they're in different pictures having sex with the same/opposite sex, they should be tagged on a case-by-case basis.

Tag what you see. Tag what you see. Tag what you see. Tag what you see. Tag what you see.

I untag all gay+solo pictures I find unless the image is clearly post-sex. (nothing like jizz leaking out to make you look straight). Bisexual should be exactly the same. we don't care about what someone's persona is. jsut what's in the image. If their bisexuality is important, then make and edit a wiki for the character, and improve the site :D

Just an idea but you could use <adverb-of-manner>_<orientation> or <adjective>_<orientation> for solo characters with their sexual orientation written all over them. Should keep all those people with flagrantly_straight or super_gay solo characters happy.

...That makes a lot more sense, Anomynous. I'll start doing that. It's always erked me trying to search for something but getting pictures of (obviously gay because the commissioner specified) thrown in the mix because we didn't have a non-"gay" tag for solo and people remove gay from solo. that gets the issue of "it's gay because two guys are going at it" as the only used definition for gay resolved, instead iof it being used to reference orientation.

A question: How do you determine sexuality when herms are involved? Say, male on male on herm. Is that bisexual?

Lyokira said:
A question: How do you determine sexuality when herms are involved? Say, male on male on herm. Is that bisexual?

The sexuality is indeterminable when an intersexed character is involved. But the guy fucking the guy is a gay act.

So what if a solo character identifies as bisexual within the pic (words, symbols, etc.)? It seems pointless to make up a "super_bisexual" tag or something, and it's really dumb when this pic, for example:
http://e621.net/post/show/164643/alpha_channel-bisexual-blue_fur-blush-buttercup_sa
has the male and female tags in it.

+1 to Riversyde's proposal

Edit:never mind already added(thanks Snowy)

From the bisexual wiki:

to be applied to images where a single character is actively displaying their bisexual orientation by engaging sexually with both a male and a female character

--

drearyrains said:
So what if a solo character identifies as bisexual within the pic (words, symbols, etc.)?

Maybe that could be an exception (not sure if it already is);
If the picture physically mentions the word 'bisexual' somewhere,be it narration (such as post #164643) or in-universe,such as dialogue between 2+ characters

titaniachkt said:
+1 to Riversyde's proposal

It's not really a "proposal" when the implication has been established for months.

drearyrains said:
So what if a solo character identifies as bisexual

Doesn't matter. If it's solo, it shouldn't be tagged bisexual.

Does that mean images such as

http://e621.net/post/show/163227/
http://e621.net/post/show/192777/
http://e621.net/post/show/166082/
http://e621.net/post/show/125236/
http://e621.net/post/show/101559/
http://e621.net/post/show/111389/
http://e621.net/post/show/75781/
(etc.)

shouldn't be tagged as "gay"? Because that also seems ridiculous.

drearyrains said:
So what if a solo character identifies as bisexual within the pic (words, symbols, etc.)?

stated_bisexuality?

Does that mean images such as

post #163227
post #192777
post #166082
post #125236
post #101559
post #111389
post #75781
(etc.)

shouldn't be tagged as "gay"? Because that also seems ridiculous.

We use the gay tag for gay sex, not gay people.
Here's what I would do:

post #163227, post #192777 & post #166082 = super_gay
post #125236, post #101559 & post #75781 = stated_homosexuality
post #111389 = gay, definitely.

Also, drearyrains, learning to use DText would make linking posts a lot easier.

So solo and sexuality do go together when there is an implication of someone offscreen. A "stated_sexuality" tag makes sense.

Hunh, I was unaware of this Dtext thing. I'll familiarize myself with it, thank you.

What about lesbians? "stated_lesbian"? "stated_sapphist"?

drearyrains said:
What about lesbians? "stated_lesbian"? "stated_sapphist"?

stated_lesbian would work.