I've recently realized that, as of about a year ago in an edit by Genjar, the wiki page for disembodied_penis says the following:

Note that because of the ambiguity, disembodied penises should not be tagged as belonging to any specific species. Just tag the penis type instead, such as humanoid penis.

having the tag work like this means that posts that are clearly depicting human_on_feral/bestiality are not being tagged as such or even having those tags removed. I don't see any reason to have the tag function in this way, especially when it ends up having a widely blacklisted tag removed from seemingly valid posts.

should that sentence be removed from the wiki page for this tag? since it was added by a user who I believe was an admin at the time I didn't really want to remove on my own without at least opening it to discussion first.

I don't think so, as far as I see it there are only disembodied_penis, humanoid_penis, and feral on the posts.
There is no way to tell what species is behind the disembodied humanoid penis, unlike in faceless_male where you can make out part of the body and include species tags.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think so, as far as I see it there are only disembodied_penis, humanoid_penis, and feral on the posts.
There is no way to tell what species is behind the disembodied humanoid penis, unlike in faceless_male where you can make out part of the body and include species tags.

but there's no reason to not assume that a character with a humanoid_penis is a human when that's all that can be seen. we don't ignore a visible feature in any other cases that I can think of; is there any reason that disembodied_penis should be an exception?

and, at the very least, in most of these situations we can at least say with some certainty that the form of the character in most of these posts is not feral.

I would say a humanoid_penis penetrating a feral would generally count for bestiality, unless the feral being penetrated can also be seen to have a humanoid penis. human_on_feral, humanoid_on_feral, and anthro_on_feral all count as bestiality, and a feral with a humanoid penis is a rare occurrence (it does happen sometimes, but just like we can assume a disembodied penis is male without more to see, I think it's a safe assumption that a disembodied humanoid penis is not feral without more to see). So while a species and human_on_feral shouldn't be tagged for a disembodied penis penetrating a feral, bestiality should be, IMO.

darryus said:
but there's no reason to not assume that a character with a humanoid_penis is a human when that's all that can be seen. we don't ignore a visible feature in any other cases that I can think of; is there any reason that disembodied_penis should be an exception?

Honestly, I'm conflicted with the idea of determining the species just from the type of disembodied penis/hand/leg they have.
Also considering disembodied_hand and disembodied_leg posts, I can see similar arguments to be made on whether or not a species tag can be included.

For example, I can tell that post #1492360 has an anthro being involved with the another anthro/humanoid, but I can't say for sure if it is a generic humanoid or just another anthro.
Another example can be post #2734230 & post #2625502, I can tell that there is a human involved with a feral, but what about post #2227953 & post #2684865? Are they gonna be considered for the human or humanoid tags?

watsit said:
I would say a humanoid_penis penetrating a feral would generally count for bestiality ... So while a species and human_on_feral shouldn't be tagged for a disembodied penis penetrating a feral, bestiality should be, IMO.

This one I can agree as a possible solution, it addresses the issues at hand but does not violate TWYS per se.