Spreading the anus and saying "Take me," as you present it to the unseen other. How do I know he's saying that? Because the image is named "Take me" and the artist says as much. If you aren't going to bother justifying it, why remove things I add?

Sods said:
Spreading the anus and saying "Take me," as you present it to the unseen other. How do I know he's saying that? Because the image is named "Take me" and the artist says as much. If you aren't going to bother justifying it, why remove things I add?

I'll go ahead and justify it then for whoever is removing it. I'm assuming you are referring to the "gay" tag. The rule on e621 is to tag what you see.

"In general, and this is the primary rule for tagging on e621, you should tag what you can see in the file uploaded. Obviously applies directly to objects and actions visible in the picture.

In other words, tags should be directly verifiable from the picture itself wherever possible: that way there will be fewer disagreements."

This is a solo pic, therefor not gay.

no sir, i dont like it

Peanut's red collar, Joey's eye spot. Is there a shipping I'm unaware of?

Sleziak said:
This is a solo pic, therefor not gay.

So should we go remove the gay tag from the other 103 'solo' pics tagged as gay?

nzt said:
So should we go remove the gay tag from the other 103 'solo' pics tagged as gay?

Yes.
As long as it's truely "solo".

Wrong logic. He's clearly presenting his anus for penetration. This visually apparent by the spreading for entry. There is an obvious unseen other unless you ignore details to decide it as so. I'm sorry your incapable of seeing his highly-implied intent, but it still is his intent.

I'm seeing a lot of comments on this picture unrelated to masturbation.

The reading equivalent is most likely reader comprehension. I only go by obvious image details. A solo male clearly presenting himself for anal sex is somewhat-difficult to justify as "only see one person" without admitting to being unable to see the implications of the image, which ARE clearly visible in the image. As someone who dislikes the (mlp) addition to everything unnecessarily, You're doing it wrong if your justification for removal is something to do with me tagging to avoid thinking.

Solo male = Not gay
Solo male presenting his anus...
Seriously. What? Do we have a tag for the clear intent to be penetrated anally by a toy/dildo/penis? If so, the tagging changes would be apt. Well?

cellidor said:
I'm seeing a lot of comments on this picture unrelated to masturbation.

Some people can think of other things than masturbation. There are picture, tagging, and general art interests...

Sods, I think you're missing the point here. Implications are irrelevant. The whole point of tagging images is to help people easily find what they are looking for through search, excluding results that people have blacklisted, and finding artists/characters, ect. For example, someone searching "gay" would be looking for two or more males engaging in sex. Likewise, someone who has "gay" blacklisted will have such results excluded. That doesn't mean they wouldn't like to see solo male pics though. The "tag by what is visible" rule makes it much easier for people to find exactly what they are looking for. If you ignore this rule then the entire system falls apart. Results would get warped and you'd end up getting a bunch of images with little relevance to what you want, simply because of outside information that holds no value on an image board.

Sods said:
Wrong logic. He's clearly presenting his anus for penetration.

And? Doesn't mean it's another male doing it.

Sods said:
Do we have a tag for the clear intent to be penetrated anally by a toy/dildo/penis?

Aaand if it's a toy it's still solo and not neccesarily gay.

Dicey said:
And? Doesn't mean it's another male doing it.
Aaand if it's a toy it's still solo and not neccesarily gay.

i dissagree with that honestly. it is true this pic we are on right now is ont gay because there is no other male and we dont kno what he is doing for all we know he is havin his ass spread for a woman to eat it out we dont kno but i believe toys in this case would make the pic gay because he would like things stuck up his ass therefore replaced with a guy and we have a gay. by content of using the toy and likin it it would have to be considered gay

Ignoring 2/3s of the stated things hardly qualifies as being right. And I was asking if there was a tag for this situation. Smug, much?

Sods said:
Ignoring 2/3s of the stated things hardly qualifies as being right. And I was asking if there was a tag for this situation. Smug, much?

At this point, you'd be better off gracefully leaving the conversation rather than resorting to ad hominems.

The correct tag would be "Imminent_(action)", I'm not sure if Imminent_sex is already a tag.

He could be looking at a female with strapon, herm, male, tentacle monster, or simply breaking the fourth wall. Even if the artist explicity states he is about to be penetrated by a male, we leave the tag out as if it is somebody with a completely blank mind staring at the picture, simply processing the data that "this is this" and "that is that".

Tag by what you see.

porn tagging: serious business.

Yarly.
Guys, its just a damn picture.

PhrozenFox said:

I see intent. Hm. Maybe imminent_penetration. No idea if imminent_anal is necessary or meaningful, though.

Morhe said:
At this point, you'd be better off gracefully leaving the conversation rather than resorting to ad hominems.

Um, no. Sorry you need to be troublesome just to be troublesome. It's called asking a question.

I was rather fond on tagging what I saw, going with the artist of the image when unsure on things, as the end of it. If there is any bias causing dispute, not my interest.

Peanut doesn't have a spot over his eye, this is Joey in a different collar.