Implicating no_testicles -> futanari.
Implicating futa_on_male -> futanari.
Implicating futa_on_female -> futanari.
Reason: To cement them as futanari sub-tags.
Updated by sgcdonmai
Posted under General
Implicating no_testicles -> futanari.
Implicating futa_on_male -> futanari.
Implicating futa_on_female -> futanari.
Reason: To cement them as futanari sub-tags.
Updated by sgcdonmai
The no_testicles tag shouldn't even exist. A search for "futanari -testicles" works just as well.
I can agree with the other two implications, though.
I'm with sgcdonmai on the no_testicles tag. I've always had an issue that we had both a testicles tag and no_testicles tag both being used on futanari.
As for the no_pussy tag, I always thought it'd make more sense to have something like no_genitals or something... a male character can be depicted with nothing down there as well and it'd be pretty much the same thing.
Anyways the futa_on* tag implications seem to be no brainers.
NWF_Renim said:
a male character can be depicted with nothing down there as well and it'd be pretty much the same thing.
My misgiving is that the penis and testicles/scrotum are very visually distinct, whereas the female 'construct' is considered in whole (ex: we use "pussy" for its tag).
So, a single subject's no_genitals could be offset by penis, if they're missing one and not the other?
If they have neither, it should be no_genitals. A female with nothing but the mound would look no different in that area than a male with neither penis nor testicles.
When there is a penis on a male, it almost always includes testicles (or at least the assumption that they are there, even if they're not visible in the picture, because there's no reason to assume they're not there). They're so obvious that no tag should really be necessary.
Futanari are more often (in my viewing experience, at least) depicted without testicles. Thus, adding the testicles tag would make for narrower search parameters.
I really don't see the point of tagging males with the testicles tag, especially as zealously done as post #492286. It would be better to reserve that for futanari since it's much more common for a futanari to not have them depicted. In that case then no_testicles then could be dumped, and if really needed for a male image then it could be used for the rare chance such an image appears.
As for images where it is only the scrotal sack shown, I still don't see a reason to have it for males since with tags like yaoi or shota or whatever it's given that you're likely going to see it on a character. If it's for finding specific types of depictions of scrotal sacks it'd make much more sense to have a unique tag that is more descriptive of the concept being tagged (such as say "large testicles" or something).
jxh2154 said:
What, no love for eunuchs on Danbooru?Anyway, I did the latter two but this thread got confusing fast on the first point. Instinctively, I would not think that no_testicles is exclusive to futas. Though that's what the wiki says since its Dec 2008 creation...
Obviously it doesn't need to be, but that's just how it's been used.
There's a problem with searching futanari -testicles to get the same results as no_testicles. That's because almost most of the futanaris that have testicles don't have them tagged.
I mean, no_test isn't used in all cases where it applies either, I think neither testicles nor no_testicles are zealously tagged either, on either males or futanaris
Edit:
Question: Should there also be futa_on_futa or does that apply under futa_on_female?
Updated
Godel said:
There's a problem with searching futanari -testicles to get the same results as no_testicles. That's because almost most of the futanaris that have testicles don't have them tagged.
That's a matter of tagging vigilance, not a problem with the tags themselves, per se.
Altering tags or introducing new ones wouldn't fix that.
Edit:
Question: Should there also be futa_on_futa or does that apply under futa_on_female?
I think there should, to fit in with the reasoning behind the existence of the other futa_on_* tags.