public -> public_indecency / imply public tags -> public_indecency

There are two tags being discussed here, exhibitionism and public indecency. I think it was a mistake to make the first imply the later but whats done is done.

Public nudity used to be defined as being fully or partially nude in a clearly public setting where being nude wouldnt normally be allowed. A nudist beach, strip club or random park bench that could be in someones garden did thus not qualify for that tag and I have made several cleanups over the years. NnTs example above would not be public nudity/indecency since she could be on a private beach and just be embarrassed for wearing the outfit in front of her lover or something. There is also the issue of "tag what you se" with the corollary "dont tag what you read". We do for an example not tag comics where girls are talking about sex as Q or E. post #4775611 (loli) would not qualify since we dont see that its a public beach, we only read it.

Exhibitionism was defined as someone intentionally exposing themselves or intentionally risking to do so. Assisted exposure would not be exhibitionism neither would blackmail or paid work. The only real exception to this was if she got really turned on by it, as is commonly the case in hentai land. As Admiral mentioned above, stuff like post #3400950 can be considered exhibitionism without being public indecency.

Now Im not saying this is how we should define these tags, but I do want reasonably clear definitions to work with. I had some of my most recent cleanup effort reverted. I admit I was careless in some cases, but tagging post #4218826 with exhibitionism simply because it has the male swimwear challenge tag seems wrong to me. The discussion in the Discord server has been somewhat heated, it was suggested we nuke the exhibitionism tag entirely. I hope we can find another way but it is reasonable if we cant differentiate it from public indecency.

It's a topless girl visibly embarrassed in a beach, how could it be anything other than exhibitionism?
This kind of argument reminds me of when someone tried to argue that brown hair on a shade can't be tagged brown hair because it could be shaded blonde hair. There's a limit to reasonable doubt: a woman naked in a forest can be reasonable doubt, a woman naked in a place commonly displayed as public like the beach, visibly embarrassed, dressed in meme attire associated with exhibitionism 99% of the time, is not.
"exhibitionism" is not a concept we invented, any random user knows what it is. You don't have to see people in the background to know that someone naked in a beach or a park is doing exhibitionism, and no amount of lawyering about private parks or nudist beaches will convince anyone of the opposite.

Come on, who would actually come to danbooru to search for exhibitionism and get upset that the two pixels behind a girl flashing her tits in a balcony can't be reasonably construed to be passerbys? This is something nobody in the real world cares about.

How is performing in front of a webcam exhibitionism?
It's just a livestream + rating:e combination.

I'm way more iffy calling that exhibitionism than post #4218826 but with everything, I'm not entirely opposed to it if there's a good argument to back things up.

It's one of these situations where a tag gets added randomly by someone without any discussion. The vast majority of livestream rating:e is not tagged with exhibitionism.

In fact, only 4 are, and in at least one of the images, the livestreaming happens in a library-like place, i.e. a public space.

In short, before advocating something should be tagged a certain, look first how the tag combination is handled with different reasons and if the post you mention here might be an outlier.

I strongly agree with Provence and NNT's arguments.

ion288 said:

[snip]

I think you're going too "textbook definition" here. Nuking the tag would be dumb, a lot of public indecency isn't outright exhibitionism, and livestreaming is not necessarily in a public setting.

I do believe though that there should be some sort of limit, mainly based on the way the character or characters around them are acting.
For example, public sex is not necessarily exhibitionism - in post #4445672 they're having sex in a secluded area, and are not making an effort to be seen, therefore it shouldn't be exhibitionism. In post #4960531 they're having sex in a public area, but they also are not making an effort to be seen, hide, or react in general to the people around them (unlike the aforementioned post #4775611), so i believe that isn't exhibitionism either. A solution could be making a "casual sex" pool, but eh.

On that note, there tends to be an overlap between exhibitionism and pool:1536, but by the definition of both they should be mutually exclusive.
I honestly still don't understand why casual nudity is not a tag, the definition is fairly objective. The way this discussion is going makes me wonder why the subjectivity does not apply to exhibitionism too.

tl;dr the exhibitionism tag should feature at least a degree of reaction or interaction to the general surroundings, be it trying to expose oneself more, hiding, or even just a little blush. Posts like post #1709140 aren't exhibitionism.

Alright, Il make an other attempt at explaining my thinking. There seems to be an assumption that a girl who is embarrassed about her nudity is experiencing exhibitionism. IMO exhibitionism should evoke expressions of exitment or desire, not just normal embarrassment.

Im not saying live streaming is always or even usually exhibitionism. If she is casual, bored or just embarrassed it would not be. If there is an expression of excitement from being filmed on the other hand it should count. And it should not be tagged with public_indecency.

And please dont dismiss what Im saying with a "no one thinks like that", there are clearly many who do. Users who wants to find ENF can just search for embarrassed public_nudity, its much harder to search for the definition Im describing.

Yeah, i get your point, that is the textbook definition of exhibitionism - getting pleasure off of being seen. The tag however doesn't tag the feelings inside the head of a character, but their actions.
To make it like you want, the tag would need to be reworked.
Basically it would go from "Character actively exposing themselves to strangers" to "characters feeling pleasure from being exposed to strangers". It's not a terrible idea, but it would risk a completely different kind of flood - just look at how many selfie nude artworks are there. Using your own example, without being able to know the context of an artwork, eg. post #2783354, would "a character feeling excited from sending a picture to their other half" count as exhibitionism?

ion288 said:

Alright, Il make an other attempt at explaining my thinking. There seems to be an assumption that a girl who is embarrassed about her nudity is experiencing exhibitionism. IMO exhibitionism should evoke expressions of exitment or desire, not just normal embarrassment.

Im not saying live streaming is always or even usually exhibitionism. If she is casual, bored or just embarrassed it would not be. If there is an expression of excitement from being filmed on the other hand it should count. And it should not be tagged with public_indecency.

And please dont dismiss what Im saying with a "no one thinks like that", there are clearly many who do. Users who wants to find ENF can just search for embarrassed public_nudity, its much harder to search for the definition Im describing.

You will run into fringe cases where nobody knows how to tag things if we follow through with that logic.
it's just not feasable.

I don't get why we have to overcomplicate things when the status quo is very well defined, barring the 4 example images.