this is the best thing ever

Doggo hungry for milk

I would faint

Genuine question.

Why wouldn't this image be tagged ambguous_gender for the werewolf? It's tagged male/male, but you only learn that explicitly by going to the source. I thought the rule here was Tag What You See. I'm not sure so I haven't changed it.

Edit: Oh. An hour later it has been. Fair enough.

yifflion said:
Genuine question.

Why wouldn't this image be tagged ambguous_gender for the werewolf? It's tagged male/male, but you only learn that explicitly by going to the source. I thought the rule here was Tag What You See. I'm not sure so I haven't changed it.

Edit: Oh. An hour later it has been. Fair enough.

male wolves have a much bigger/wider bridge on their nose to forehead. PLUS females look for "foxier" They have a very slightly thinner muzzle and perhaps somewhat less massive bone structure.

Bro thinks he can drop such an exquisite image without warning us 😫

That tickles

We need a tag for rimjob+blowjob, and then we need more pieces with it.
Because that looks absolutely heavenly.

Blowjob plus a Rimjob? my boy is in heaven!

Holy shit

Was not aware I had a thing for prostate + blowjob but I guess you learn something new everyday!

why is this tagged amogus i hate that

furburger2890w0 said:
why is this tagged amogus i hate that

The moon

Divine

Meli1234 said:

yifflion said:
Genuine question.

Why wouldn't this image be tagged ambguous_gender for the werewolf? It's tagged male/male, but you only learn that explicitly by going to the source. I thought the rule here was Tag What You See. I'm not sure so I haven't changed it.

Edit: Oh. An hour later it has been. Fair enough.

male wolves have a much bigger/wider bridge on their nose to forehead. PLUS females look for "foxier" They have a very slightly thinner muzzle and perhaps somewhat less massive bone structure.

Given furries' tendency to overlook or straight up ignore various biological aspects, this could very well be a female for all we know

yifflion said:
Genuine question.

Why wouldn't this image be tagged ambguous_gender for the werewolf? It's tagged male/male, but you only learn that explicitly by going to the source. I thought the rule here was Tag What You See. I'm not sure so I haven't changed it.

Edit: Oh. An hour later it has been. Fair enough.

But source say this is male/male...Why was the tag "male/ambiguous" left anyway? Shouldn't the original source be a priority in the tag decision?

iaracagei said:
But source say this is male/male...Why was the tag "male/ambiguous" left anyway? Shouldn't the original source be a priority in the tag decision?

This is the crux of the endless debate about Tag What You See.

You can't assume that everyone who looks at an image knows the backstory and the characters or failing that will go to the source and check, so, the theory goes, the only way to be consistent about tagging is tag strictly based on what you see in the image.

There are obviously edge cases, but if it's say, obviously Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps, for example, even if it's just a head shot of each, it'd be accepted to assume they're male and female, respectively. There's a bit of grey in there, honestly.

yifflion said:
This is the crux of the endless debate about Tag What You See.

You can't assume that everyone who looks at an image knows the backstory and the characters or failing that will go to the source and check, so, the theory goes, the only way to be consistent about tagging is tag strictly based on what you see in the image.

There are obviously edge cases, but if it's say, obviously Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps, for example, even if it's just a head shot of each, it'd be accepted to assume they're male and female, respectively. There's a bit of grey in there, honestly.

Ugh......
Yes, but this is already a problem for the viewer if he sees something other than what the author originally wanted to indicate. As for me, if the author clearly indicated the gender of the characters in the original source (and the one who uploaded the drawing to the site saw and noted it), then it should always be referenced (as here, for example). People can easily spoil the original idea of the author with their views, and this, in my opinion, should not be. So you can even make characters already familiar to everyone by wanting someone to be trances, futa, etc. *And what? That's how I see him! (Sarcasm)* (There are also images of popular characters where their genitals do not correspond to their original gender.) Maybe I don't see a man here, but a woman with a male genital organ, hmm? The face is not visible and it may well be that.
I wildly do not understand the idea of "Tag What You See.". Stupidly, as for me, that's all (provided, again, if the gender is indicated by the author initially).
Okay, it won't change anything anyway, since, as you said, "This is the crux of the endless debate about Tag What You See."...

iaracagei said:
Ugh......
Yes, but this is already a problem for the viewer if he sees something other than what the author originally wanted to indicate. As for me, if the author clearly indicated the gender of the characters in the original source (and the one who uploaded the drawing to the site saw and noted it), then it should always be referenced (as here, for example). People can easily spoil the original idea of the author with their views, and this, in my opinion, should not be. So you can even make characters already familiar to everyone by wanting someone to be trances, futa, etc. *And what? That's how I see him! (Sarcasm)* (There are also images of popular characters where their genitals do not correspond to their original gender.) Maybe I don't see a man here, but a woman with a male genital organ, hmm? The face is not visible and it may well be that.
I wildly do not understand the idea of "Tag What You See.". Stupidly, as for me, that's all (provided, again, if the gender is indicated by the author initially).
Okay, it won't change anything anyway, since, as you said, "This is the crux of the endless debate about Tag What You See."...

I aint readin allat

This is one of the best mawshots I've ever seen

I was straight up flabbergasted and aroused when I saw the tongue reach the asshole

iaracagei said:
Ugh......
Yes, but this is already a problem for the viewer if he sees something other than what the author originally wanted to indicate. As for me, if the author clearly indicated the gender of the characters in the original source (and the one who uploaded the drawing to the site saw and noted it), then it should always be referenced (as here, for example). People can easily spoil the original idea of the author with their views, and this, in my opinion, should not be. So you can even make characters already familiar to everyone by wanting someone to be trances, futa, etc. *And what? That's how I see him! (Sarcasm)* (There are also images of popular characters where their genitals do not correspond to their original gender.) Maybe I don't see a man here, but a woman with a male genital organ, hmm? The face is not visible and it may well be that.
I wildly do not understand the idea of "Tag What You See.". Stupidly, as for me, that's all (provided, again, if the gender is indicated by the author initially).
Okay, it won't change anything anyway, since, as you said, "This is the crux of the endless debate about Tag What You See."...

One of the issues with TWYS is that even if you know the characters gender (And they DON'T have gender fluidity like some), some people will take issue with tagging a characters gender (Even though you know the gender because of the character), instead of ambiguous, just because you can't see their tits/vagina or pecs/dick (Or a combination of those 4).
It's annoying because then some people (Very occasionally me), have to correct that when we notice it, rather than it being done from the very beginning.

Had this one post where people kept adding and removing the anal & vaginal tags because they couldn't agree that it was anal.

I imagine this likely wasn't an issue early on, but it's become one, especially with the sheer number of tags present now, compared to say, 5 or 10 years ago.

i am in LOVE

What this website hasn’t got at all is an animation of a large dom giving a smaller dude a blowjob and rim job just like this. Why isn’t there anything!!