My question is: Should this combination exist on posts featuring only male characters?

ambiguous_penetration: "When it's not entirely clear whether the image depicts anal_penetration or vaginal_penetration."

But if a male penetrates another male (excluding oral) it has to be anal.
post #2783063 post #2879379 post #2852040 post #2796681

I would tag this with anal_penetration. So, are the tags in these posts cursed, or is my tagging cursed?

dubsthefox said:

But if a male penetrates another male (excluding oral) it has to be anal.

Urethra, ears, nostrils, skullfucking, woundfucking, in the case of characters with tail or tentacle orfices, those as well. Never underestimate the creativity of furries.

So you see that it's anal? We don't see the traits to tag the second and fourth as andromorph, but what if they were? What if the first and third ones were maleherms? We can only tag what we see, and frankly, those images are showing fucking in an area that isn't solely anus-territory.

furrin_gok said:
We don't see the traits to tag the second and fourth as andromorph, but what if they were?

If it was a reasonable enough assumption, then it wouldn't be male_penetrated. If it's reasonable enough to assume a male is being penetrated, it's equally reasonable to assume they don't have a vagina. If it's not reasonable to assume they don't have a vagina, then it's equally not reasonable to assume they're male.

Various sex and penetration tags don't work on the "you must specifically see it to tag it" principle, but rather, "given what we do see, tag the overwhelmingly likely scenario". With post #2889849 we can't see what hole is being penetrated; the character could be a herm/maleherm and it's vaginal, as we don't see that they don't have a vagina, but we do see a penis on the penetrated character and no other physical feature to suggest they're a (male)herm, so they're tagged as male as the overwhelmingly likely case, and consequently being anally penetrated as the overwhelmingly likely case. Same with post #2889327, post #2889298, with tons more to be found under anal_penetration -anus -intersex.

votp said:
Urethra, ears, nostrils, skullfucking, woundfucking, in the case of characters with tail or tentacle orfices, those as well. Never underestimate the creativity of furries.

Ok. skull- and wound-fucking are new to me.

furrin_gok said:
So you see that it's anal? We don't see the traits to tag the second and fourth as andromorph, but what if they were? What if the first and third ones were maleherms? We can only tag what we see, and frankly, those images are showing fucking in an area that isn't solely anus-territory.

By that logic, we would have to tag all characters whose crotch we can't see, as ambiguous.

dubsthefox said:
By that logic, we would have to tag all characters whose crotch we can't see, as ambiguous.

Ambiguous penetration, and no, it still depends on the angle/position of the penetrating character. The first three of those images don't look properly positioned to be anal, while the fourth one is ambiguous enough that it looks like it could be tribadism/vaginal or anal.
post #2783063 looks like it's either some hidden vaginal penetration or else hot-dogging(!) from a smaller penis. post #2852040 looks like it's a reverse balljob or vaginal penetration. The splatter of cum on post #2879379 suggests some sort of penetration, but is positioned to be vaginal penetration.

Do note that those first two are potentially not even penetration, but positioned to be the other sort if they are. Personally, I'd support keeping ambiguous_penetration in that case, but what about the third? That one emphasises location: by the logic of "It's a male penetrating a male," the penetration is in an impossible location. The rat would have to have a prehensile dick, or otherwise misshapen, to penetrate down there.

I don't agree with a lot of the reasonings used here.

We use TWYS and specific definitions of the physical characteristics of genders here and through that we can make several assumptions.

My logical reasoning would go something like this:

First, I would figure out the genders of the characters involved. In the first image of the OP, I would tag both characters as male. As defined in the wiki, male characters can’t have female genitalia. So, if one of the characters is penetrating the other from behind, then we know that it can’t be vaginal penetration and must be anal penetration. Therefore, it can never be ambiguous penetration. If the penetrated character was female, then I would tag it as ambiguous penetration since either vaginal or anal penetration can be applied for a female character.

This would cause problems with intersex characters however, since because of TWYS, many herm and maleherm characters have to be tagged as gynomorphs or males because their female genitalia isn’t visible.

I also don’t agree with using the angle/position of the penetrating character argument since that depends entirely on the artist and whether or not they drew the piece anatomically correct. I’ve seen many images where artist draw the pussy or anus too high or too low.

First one could easily be hotdogging, and I'm not sure what to make of the third (the angle is really off for anal), but the other two seem safe to tag as anal_penetration.
If the character is male by twys (which they are), then none of the 'could be maleherm' argument is relevant.