Posted under Tags
I still have deep misgivings about any public_nudity -> public_indecency implication, because as I stated already, nudity is not necessarily sexual. There's nothing sexual about a character experiencing a wardrobe malfunction and having her tits fall out in a classroom, for instance. Even intentional nudity can be non-sexual in the right context, like a group of friends skinny-dipping in a public pool.
Username_Hidden said:
Wouldn't that still count as public though, if it was done with people around? I think we're overthinking things.
I think the point was it may not be "indecent" even if it is "public" given the right context (interpreting "club" there to be a nudist colony or the like). Technically a private club or a solitary person in a forest or field outdoors isn't *really* public, but it seems to fit the way we've used public nudity in the past.
Public nude beach (or clothing-optional beach like in some European countries). Public nudity, but obviously not public indecency because it's socially acceptable (and sometimes expected).
I think at this point public indecency should be reverted back to public, or changed to an alternate name. Otherwise it's gonna become the opposite of Casual Nudity (pool #1536) and turned into a pool, because there are way too many variables to keep in mind.
Public indecency is fine to me. It's certainly better than public.
I think exhibitionism and public nudity are currently too overtagged to imply public indecency. The public indecency fetish is usually about being nude or doing lewd things "in public", where either it's not allowed, or there's a risk of being caught. Exhibitionism and public nudity are currently used in too many situations where they're not really in public, either because they're not in front of other people, or there's no risk of being caught. For example, in the middle of a forest, or on an empty beach with nobody around.
iridescent_slime said:
I still have deep misgivings about any public_nudity -> public_indecency implication, because as I stated already, nudity is not necessarily sexual. There's nothing sexual about a character experiencing a wardrobe malfunction and having her tits fall out in a classroom, for instance. Even intentional nudity can be non-sexual in the right context, like a group of friends skinny-dipping in a public pool.
I don't entirely agree with the "public nudity isn't necessarily sexual" argument. In real life, nudity at places like a nude beach or an onsen might not be inherently sexual. But in the context of Danbooru, public nudity is a tag for a sexual fetish. Things like post #1208294 (nude on a public train) are sexual because they're made to satisfy a sexual fetish. On the other hand, things like being nude at a public onsen might be public nudity in a very literal sense, but for Danbooru purposes they're not normally tagged as public nudity or public indecency because they're not part of this fetish.
I would say exhibitionism counts as public indecency since it's about the thrill of being caught, but public_nudity would be the "natural" tag I guess.
I think exhibitionism currently has too much stuff like post #4843686 or post #4797656 or post #4686732 that's not visibly in any kind of public situation.
evazion said:
I think exhibitionism currently has too much stuff like post #4843686 or post #4797656 or post #4686732 that's not visibly in any kind of public situation.
I think those are very much mistagged as exhibitionism requires a context. And simple background images don't deliver any context. Otherwise you need to tag every breasts_outside simple_background image with it. And nobody wants that.
The bulk update request #8007 (forum #200849) has been approved by @evazion.
The bulk update request #7870 (forum #199812) has been approved by @evazion.
There is massive overtagging of exhibitionism right now and that has caused public indecency to inherit all of those problems. It should have been seriously cleaned up and given a better wiki before this BUR went through.
Although the BUR itself isn't the problem, forcing it through has caused a mass mistag event due to exhibitionism being overtagged. The amount of blank background, stealth blowjobs, empty classroom panty shots, and even an image of a woman in her underwear in an empty office being tagged exhibitionism is kinda nutty.
I think there's also too much eager removal of this tag. I just saw several posts of people having sex in a wrestling ring or flashing their tits out in a balcony removed from public indecency, on the first case because people were paying to see, and on the second because one can't be 100% sure that people could be watching (post #4227443 for example).
That's ridiculous. public indecency is a fetish tag about people being naked or having sex in public places. If a girl is doing a male swimwear challenge, being topless in the middle of a beach, or being clearly in a public space opening her clothes and revealing a nude body underneath, even if we can't see other people in the picture you can't tell me that's not exhibitionism + public indecency. Excluding this kind of posts would make these tags useless.
Updated
What about a situation in which a character is livestreaming or recording themselves being lewd? If that shouldn't be tagged exhibitionism then it should be addressed in the wiki.
nonamethanks said:
That's ridiculous. public indecency is a fetish tag about people being naked or having sex in public places.
You're missing a key element: The audience. Exhibitionism is specifically meant to draw eyes. Stealth sex, accidental exposure, giving someone a quick peak? That's not exhibitionism. Flashing in public & sex with an audience is exhibitionism.
Obviously, that wrestling ring counts. Obviously, most male swimwear counts. Without dialogue, a blank background should be an immediate disqualification for any of the involved tags.
However, an underlying issue seems to be that the public indecency tag has a very specific definition despite its very generic naming. Zenra and the other tags talked about are edging towards being a collection of tags with the same de facto meanings rather than being three distinct fetish tags.
nonamethanks said:
I think there's also too much eager removal of this tag. I just saw several posts of people having sex in a wrestling ring or flashing their tits out in a balcony removed from public indecency, on the first case because people were paying to see, and on the second because one can't be 100% sure that people could be watching (post #4227443 for example).
That's ridiculous. public indecency is a fetish tag about people being naked or having sex in public places. If a girl is doing a male swimwear challenge, being topless in the middle of a beach, or being clearly in a public space opening her clothes and revealing a nude body underneath, even if we can't see other people in the picture you can't tell me that's not exhibitionism + public indecency. Excluding this kind of posts would make these tags useless.
Correct.
I would only remove it in a situation where it's clear that the scene is taking place somewhere in a vacuum, so to speak.
Meaning stuff with a white_background because there you can draw whatever you like, unbound from any kind of context.
