Topic: *_rape -> *_raping + implications BUR

The bulk update request #6200 is pending approval.

Reason: BUR #6205 (further down in the thread) needs to be done first.

The *_rape tags are currently defined and used as referring to the character doing the raping. From a cursory glance these seem to be well-enforced, without too many mistags. However, they are named really poorly in my opinion, as their meaning is ambiguous without looking at the wiki. This BUR would bring them in line with the way we handle penetration, a parallel case (male_penetrating and male_penetrated rather than male_penetration and male_penetrated).

Older/younger and larger/smaller are simple dichotomies, making older_raping synonymous with younger_raped; again, these aliases are handled the same way they are for penetration.

The subsequent BURs in this thread will be setting up basic implications for the *_raping and *_raped tags.

_{I'm not touching the x_raping_y tags right now, those are a whole 'nother can of worms.}

The bulk update request #6201 is pending approval.

Reason: Part II

The bulk update request #6202 is pending approval.

create implication human_raping (0) -> rape (56013)
create implication human_raping (0) -> human (441017)
create implication human_raped (162) -> rape (56013)
create implication human_raped (162) -> human (441017)
create implication humanoid_raping (0) -> rape (56013)
create implication humanoid_raping (0) -> humanoid (527453)
create implication humanoid_raped (36) -> rape (56013)
create implication humanoid_raped (36) -> humanoid (527453)
create implication anthro_raping (157) -> rape (56013)
create implication anthro_raping (157) -> anthro (4012567)
create implication anthro_raped (480) -> rape (56013)
create implication anthro_raped (480) -> anthro (4012567)
create implication feral_raping (1) -> rape (56013)
create implication feral_raping (1) -> feral (711292)
create implication feral_raped (279) -> rape (56013)
create implication feral_raped (279) -> feral (711292)
create implication taur_raping (0) -> rape (56013)
create implication taur_raping (0) -> taur (22190)
create implication taur_raped (0) -> rape (56013)
create implication taur_raped (0) -> taur (22190)

Reason: Part III

The bulk update request #6203 is pending approval.

create implication young_raping (0) -> rape (56013)
create implication young_raping (0) -> young (281029)
create implication older_raped (29) -> rape (56013)
create implication older_raped (29) -> age_difference (83317)
create implication younger_raped (661) -> rape (56013)
create implication younger_raped (661) -> age_difference (83317)
create implication larger_raped (2) -> rape (56013)
create implication larger_raped (2) -> size_difference (428431)
create implication smaller_raped (286) -> rape (56013)
create implication smaller_raped (286) -> size_difference (428431)

Reason: Part IV

pleaseletmein said:
create alias male_rape (3542) -> male_raping (1) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

This needs unimply male_rape -> rape in a separate BUR.

pleaseletmein said:
create alias young_rape (58) -> young_raping (0) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

This needs

unalias cub_rape -> young_rape
unimply young_raping_young -> young_rape

in a separate BUR (and at least alias cub_rape -> young_raping added with young_rape alias, maybe alias cub_raping -> young_raping as well).

pleaseletmein said:
create implication gynomorph_raping (0) -> intersex_raping (0)
create implication gynomorph_raped (9) -> intersex_raped (1)
create implication herm_raping (0) -> intersex_raping (0)
create implication herm_raped (0) -> intersex_raped (1)
create implication andromorph_raping (0) -> intersex_raping (0)
create implication andromorph_raped (9) -> intersex_raped (1)
create implication maleherm_raping (0) -> intersex_raping (0)
create implication maleherm_raped (0) -> intersex_raped (1)

These seem to be missing implications to gynomorph, herm, andromorph, and maleherm.

The bulk update request #6204 is pending approval.

create implication gynomorph_raping (0) -> gynomorph (233213)
create implication gynomorph_raped (21) -> gynomorph (233213)
create implication herm_raping (0) -> herm (31695)
create implication herm_raped (3) -> herm (31695)
create implication andromorph_raping (0) -> andromorph (29582)
create implication andromorph_raped (30) -> andromorph (29582)
create implication maleherm_raping (0) -> maleherm (5556)
create implication maleherm_raped (6) -> maleherm (5556)

Reason: Part V

The bulk update request #6205 is pending approval.

remove implication male_rape (4617) -> rape (56013)
remove alias cub_rape (0) -> young_rape (63)
remove implication young_raping_young (0) -> young_rape (63)

Reason: Existing implications/aliases that need to be out of the way.

Followup

alias cub_rape -> young_raping
alias cub_raping -> young_raping
imply young_raping_young -> young_raping

watsit said:
This needs unimply male_rape -> rape in a separate BUR.

This needs

unalias cub_rape -> young_rape
unimply young_raping_young -> young_rape

in a separate BUR (and at least alias cub_rape -> young_raping added with young_rape alias, maybe alias cub_raping -> young_raping as well).

These seem to be missing implications to gynomorph, herm, andromorph, and maleherm.

Thank you

https://e621.net/meta_searches/tags?name=male_rape&commit=Go
https://e621.net/meta_searches/tags?name=male_raping&commit=Go
https://e621.net/meta_searches/tags?name=young_rape&commit=Go
https://e621.net/meta_searches/tags?name=young_raping&commit=Go

Hmm, I was having trouble finding the BUR involved. Some of the scripts I created might be conflicting, so I was going to go check .

Isn't there also a BUR suggesting a change from *_raping to *_rapist? That will have to be coordinated with this one.

beholding said:
Isn't there also a BUR suggesting a change from *_raping to *_rapist? That will have to be coordinated with this one.

I think I recall someone not being fond of *_rapist, since it could be taken as stating some character is a rapist even if they're not currently raping someone. It could also be abused by people accusing a character's owner of being a rapist. *_raping follows other verbing tags (*_penetrating instead of *_penetrator, *_fingering instead of *_fingerer), and is more clearly referring to an action taking place.

So, like, is there any functional difference between male_raping and dominant_male + rape? Is there any possible case in which a rapist is not dominant? Is there any particular reason to keep a whole set of raping/raped tags separate from dominant/submissive?

watsit said:
I think I recall someone not being fond of *_rapist, since it could be taken as stating some character is a rapist even if they're not currently raping someone. It could also be abused by people accusing a character's owner of being a rapist. *_raping follows other verbing tags (*_penetrating instead of *_penetrator, *_fingering instead of *_fingerer), and is more clearly referring to an action taking place.

Good lord the actual drama mongering that could be sewn if there was a *_rapist or even just rapist tag
I haven't seen that BUR request but definitely count me as a Minus 1 to that

spe said:
So, like, is there any functional difference between male_raping and dominant_male + rape? Is there any possible case in which a rapist is not dominant?

Multiple sex scenes happening in one image between different groups of characters, be it a collage or multiple panels

spe said:
Is there any possible case in which a rapist is not dominant?

Maybe if the rapist was being mind controlled/hypnotized?

spe said:
So, like, is there any functional difference between male_raping and dominant_male + rape? Is there any possible case in which a rapist is not dominant? Is there any particular reason to keep a whole set of raping/raped tags separate from dominant/submissive?

At the risk of necroposting: Blacklist granularity is all the justification required. Dominant/submissive relationships can be consensual, rape definitionally is not. Users need to be able to distinguish between the former and the latter.

(Frankly the dominant/submissive tags are a huge mess anyway, so I wouldn't recommend jumping into that quagmire yet. Let's get these more objective tags cleaned up first.)

beholding said:
At the risk of necroposting: Blacklist granularity is all the justification required. Dominant/submissive relationships can be consensual, rape definitionally is not. Users need to be able to distinguish between the former and the latter.

They already can, though. (gender)_dominating_(gender) -forced for consensual relationships, and (gender)_dominating_(gender) forced for non-consensual relationships. I don’t see why this wouldn’t suffice for nearly all cases.

spe said:
They already can, though. (gender)_dominating_(gender) -forced for consensual relationships, and (gender)_dominating_(gender) forced for non-consensual relationships. I don’t see why this wouldn’t suffice for nearly all cases.

that seems like a very non-intuitive way of going about things that would be confusing for the average user

also, having rape tags aliased to dominant tags just really wouldn't be a good look imo

I can't see any scenario in which removing "rape" as a searchable tag doesn't make the site worse.

spe said:
They already can, though. (gender)_dominating_(gender) -forced for consensual relationships, and (gender)_dominating_(gender) forced for non-consensual relationships. I don’t see why this wouldn’t suffice for nearly all cases.

Also, I thought we were retiring x_dominating_y?

spe said:
So, like, is there any functional difference between male_raping and dominant_male + rape? Is there any possible case in which a rapist is not dominant? Is there any particular reason to keep a whole set of raping/raped tags separate from dominant/submissive?

I do not believe *_raping/*_raped translate well to dominant_*/submissive_*.

Have you considered whether all rape cases would depict dominant/submissive roles?
Would all (forced) sleep_sex or roofies/drugged instances be considered? Would all rape_by_proxy instances be considered?

beholding said:
I can't see any scenario in which removing "rape" as a searchable tag doesn't make the site worse.

I agree? I wasn’t suggesting that in the slightest.

Also, I thought we were retiring x_dominating_y?

It’s been suggested before, but there are currently no plans to remove those tags at this time.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I do not believe *_raping/*_raped translate well to dominant_*/submissive_*.

Have you considered whether all rape cases would depict dominant/submissive roles?
Would all (forced) sleep_sex or roofies/drugged instances be considered? Would all rape_by_proxy instances be considered?

• sleep sex is inherently weird when it comes to consent and TWYS. From a real-life legal perspective, it generally would count as rape unless consent is specifically arranged in advance, but we can’t really know that that didn’t happen in artwork without external knowledge. A cursory look through sleep_sex rape didn’t find anything I would actually tag as "rape". These all look to be tagged by lore, and, well… questionable consent exists exactly for cases like this. In fact, implying questionable_consent from sleep_sex would almost work if not for the fact that consent can be arranged in advance, making it unquestionable. For the purposes of tagging rape, though, I think there really needs to be visual signs of distress, refusal, etc. which one can’t do while asleep, otherwise TWYS is violated.

• drugged - highly contextual, but I’d still say this generally falls under dominant/submissive. I’d think of it in the same sense that bondage involves a dominant and a submissive, or at least a submissive. It’s power dynamics. Someone has more, someone has less, or someone takes it from another. It’s either something like that, or it likely falls into the weird uncertain consent gray area of sleep_sex, see above.

• rape_by_proxy is an odd case. It’s like mutual rape, with either individual being raped by the other. But neither of them is the rapist - that would be the third party who put them into that situation. So, let’s consider the case of male/female rape by proxy. The proposed (gender)_raping tags would not be any more useful here. Both the male and the female would be tagged submissive and/or raped, but neither is raping. The dominant and/or rapist would be a third character, if depicted in the scene. It could very well be the rare dominant_ambiguous if their gender isn’t evident. But with these tags we’d still need an ambiguous_raping tag for this case, and even that feels weird to tag if the character isn’t physically involved. Technically correct. Dominant/submissive still fits, though.

So, look… I’m not thoroughly opposed to the existence of these tags, but I question how useful they are versus tags we already have in wide use. Even if there are a few dozen posts that could use these tags but not dominant/submissive, does that justify an extra dozen tags and the, like, 50k rape posts that they’re not yet tagged on, and the consequent tag project to add them? It seems like a lot if just searching rape + dominant/submissive_(gender) will work just as well for at least 99.9% of cases.

spe said:

• sleep sex is inherently weird when it comes to consent and TWYS. ... For the purposes of tagging rape, though, I think there really needs to be visual signs of distress, refusal, etc. which one can’t do while asleep, otherwise TWYS is violated.

• drugged - highly contextual, but I’d still say this generally falls under dominant/submissive. ... It’s either something like that, or it likely falls into the weird uncertain consent gray area of sleep_sex, see above.

I do believe that rape is one of those tags that are exempt from strict TWYS tagging, considering that the wiki says:

• "While this typically creates obvious distress for the victim (eg. crying, fighting, struggling and so on) and often involves violence, resistance doesn't have to be constant or overt for a sex act to count as rape. If the rapist continues to force the issue after the victim says "No" or "Stop,” the entire event counts as rape, even if the submitting partner changes their mind after the act began."

In short, active resistance is not a must-have criteria for tagging rape. Likewise, contextual cues in the form of dialogue (i.e., explicitly_stated_nonconsent) may also considered for rape.

For example, an outwardly meek/gentle character taking advantage of another outwardly domineering/bossy yet unconscious character (either sleeping or drugged), with the latter being unfazed and mumbling for the former to "stop bothering them or they will punish them" could be considered as rape. However, that does not exactly exude energies of a dominant_*/submissive_* relationship.
Likewise, the initiator of *_raping may be the one engaging in sexsomnia, but I don't know if that will always show a dominant_* role considering that they are essentially unconscious.

• rape_by_proxy is an odd case. ... The proposed (gender)_raping tags would not be any more useful here. Both the male and the female would be tagged submissive and/or raped, but neither is raping. The dominant and/or rapist would be a third character, if depicted in the scene. ... Technically correct. Dominant/submissive still fits, though.

I guess I should have also prefaced my belief that "for every submissive_*, there needs to be an accompanying dominant_*."
My argument was mainly centred around *_raped rather than *_raping, so a post couldn't have two submissive_* characters while not a single dominant_* character is present.

However, I can see that we were not really on the same page in regard to this point to begin with, based on a previous discussion we had years ago on topic #33049.

So, look… I’m not thoroughly opposed to the existence of these tags, but I question how useful they are versus tags we already have in wide use. ... It seems like a lot if just searching rape + dominant/submissive_(gender) will work just as well for at least 99.9% of cases.

My question is how easy would it be to convince everyone to move from using *_rape to dominant_*/submissive_*.
I feel that, for the sake of breaking the ambiguity, *_raping/*_raped should be sufficient for now.
If both tags are found to be identical to dominant_*/submissive_*, then a future BUR can merge them together.

Personally though, I have not voted on these BURs because I'd much rather see all of the ambiguously-named *_rape tags be consolidated into one giant rape_(disambiguation) tag instead, after their posts have been mass updated.
Though if people believe the potential mistags to be negligible, then I don't see a problem with it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
...
My question is how easy would it be to convince everyone to move from using *_rape to dominant_*/submissive_*.
I feel that, for the sake of breaking the ambiguity, *_raping/*_raped should be sufficient for now.
If both tags are found to be identical to dominant_*/submissive_*, then a future BUR can merge them together.

Combining rape and domination tags completely would be... kind of gross?

Personally though, I have not voted on these BURs because I'd much rather see all of the ambiguously-named *_rape tags be consolidated into one giant rape_(disambiguation) tag instead, after their posts have been mass updated.
Though if people believe the potential mistags to be negligible, then I don't see a problem with it.

What? I guess I missed something there.

spe said:
I agree? I wasn’t suggesting that in the slightest.

So you're only suggesting we remove the gendered rape tags? I still don't think that would be a good idea, for the same reasons forwarded by the responses above me.

At the end of the day, you have to remember the rules and regulations are meant to enhance user experience, not the other way around (or at least I assume that's the case). A rando visiting this site isn't going to be familiar with your particular arguments for why condensing these tags is technically more efficient; if they want to search for rape content, that's the word they're going to use, and they're going to be confused when that gets them a lot of consensual BDSM content instead.

beholding said:
So you're only suggesting we remove the gendered rape tags? I still don't think that would be a good idea, for the same reasons forwarded by the responses above me.

At the end of the day, you have to remember the rules and regulations are meant to enhance user experience, not the other way around (or at least I assume that's the case). A rando visiting this site isn't going to be familiar with your particular arguments for why condensing these tags is technically more efficient; if they want to search for rape content, that's the word they're going to use, and they're going to be confused when that gets them a lot of consensual BDSM content instead.

I kind of doubt that. They'll primarily be searching the rape tag - and if they do use these other tags instead and are confused by getting consensual BDSM... then they'll just add the rape tag to their search, no? Seems kind of obvious.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I do believe that rape is one of those tags that are exempt from strict TWYS tagging, considering that the wiki says:

• "While this typically creates obvious distress for the victim (eg. crying, fighting, struggling and so on) and often involves violence, resistance doesn't have to be constant or overt for a sex act to count as rape. If the rapist continues to force the issue after the victim says "No" or "Stop,” the entire event counts as rape, even if the submitting partner changes their mind after the act began."

In short, active resistance is not a must-have criteria for tagging rape. Likewise, contextual cues in the form of dialogue (i.e., explicitly_stated_nonconsent) may also considered for rape.

For example, an outwardly meek/gentle character taking advantage of another outwardly domineering/bossy yet unconscious character (either sleeping or drugged), with the latter being unfazed and mumbling for the former to "stop bothering them or they will punish them" could be considered as rape. However, that does not exactly exude energies of a dominant_*/submissive_* relationship.
Likewise, the initiator of *_raping may be the one engaging in sexsomnia, but I don't know if that will always show a dominant_* role considering that they are essentially unconscious.

It's not *exempt* from TWYS, but it is one of the few tags that generally gets a pass for dialogue, which is usually excluded from tagging (ie. outwardly female character says "I'm a boy," still gets tagged female because visuals overrule dialogue). And I did say that refusal also counts for this tag. That does not mean people can tag rape based entirely on external information, and I will still remove the tag if it isn't visually apparent or at least implied through dialogue or whatever.

I guess I should have also prefaced my belief that "for every submissive_*, there needs to be an accompanying dominant_*."
My argument was mainly centred around *_raped rather than *_raping, so a post couldn't have two submissive_* characters while not a single dominant_* character is present.

However, I can see that we were not really on the same page in regard to this point to begin with, based on a previous discussion we had years ago on topic #33049.

Yeah, I strongly disagree that solo submissive posts are not possible. There are roughly 40,000 posts tagged solo submissive and I think imposing that as a rule would be actively detrimental to the search system.

Also, I don't understand how solo submissive would not be acceptable but solo *_raped is? If you can't have a submissive without a dominant, how can you possibly have a *_raped without a *_raping? Likewise for multiple submissives.

My question is how easy would it be to convince everyone to move from using *_rape to dominant_*/submissive_*.
I feel that, for the sake of breaking the ambiguity, *_raping/*_raped should be sufficient for now.
If both tags are found to be identical to dominant_*/submissive_*, then a future BUR can merge them together.

Maybe an implication. Several thousand rape posts are already tagged with dominant/submissive, far more than are tagged with these gendered raping tags, so people have already been extensively using them that way. At least with an implication it'll be searchable with either tag, and the concept of domination/submission doesn't get split up across multiple tags.

spe said:
I kind of doubt that. They'll primarily be searching the rape tag - and if they do use these other tags instead and are confused by getting consensual BDSM... then they'll just add the rape tag to their search, no? Seems kind of obvious.

So, two things here: One, I think you're engaging in the average familiarity fallacy. As a site administrator, you're intimately familiar with the site's systems and tags, and that makes it easy for you to think of solutions for the problems we're outlining here. But new users and casual users are not going to know about this forum argument or the particular definitions of the tags. They may not even know that combo searches are possible.

You have to remember you're not designing a system for robots, you're designing a system for people, and people are imperfect. They're going to be ignorant of things you think are obvious, they're going to bring in unexpected assumptions, they're going to do stupid things, and they're going to be easily frustrated. A good system has to be designed with human error in mind, and sometimes that means using more intuitive terminology even if it seems redundant.

Second, I'm not sure your proposed solution would actually work 100% of the time. To use one example, let's say I wanted to search for (or blacklist) female_raping_male content. Under your system, I would instead need to search rape dominant_female submissive_male. Leaving aside the inconvenience of turning a one-tag search into a three-tag one and the fact that the dominant and submissive tags are massively mistagged and undertagged, such a search does not preclude images in which rape and a consensual femdom/malesub relationship is present. You could further narrow it down with tags like duo, but that brings us back to my first point that you can't assume every user is an expert in your tag and search system.

And this isn't even mentioning the edge cases brought up earlier like rape_by_proxy. I really think merging these tags would create more problems than they solve, especially given how badly mistagged dominant_* and submissive_* are on top of everything else.

beholding said:
So, two things here: One, I think you're engaging in the average familiarity fallacy. As a site administrator, you're intimately familiar with the site's systems and tags, and that makes it easy for you to think of solutions for the problems we're outlining here. But new users and casual users are not going to know about this forum argument or the particular definitions of the tags. They may not even know that combo searches are possible.

You have to remember you're not designing a system for robots, you're designing a system for people, and people are imperfect. They're going to be ignorant of things you think are obvious, they're going to bring in unexpected assumptions, they're going to do stupid things, and they're going to be easily frustrated. A good system has to be designed with human error in mind, and sometimes that means using more intuitive terminology even if it seems redundant.

Second, I'm not sure your proposed solution would actually work 100% of the time. To use one example, let's say I wanted to search for (or blacklist) female_raping_male content. Under your system, I would instead need to search rape dominant_female submissive_male. Leaving aside the inconvenience of turning a one-tag search into a three-tag one and the fact that the dominant and submissive tags are massively mistagged and undertagged,

uhh... okay, so if combo searches are too complicated for someone, how are they going to use female_raping male_raped? That's a combo search - let alone even knowing that these more niche tags exist. No, the average casual user is most likely just going to search rape. None of the proposed solutions interfere with that in any way. If they really want to find something specific, they'll have to learn what tags we use for that, no way around it. And if the tags are aliased, they'll just redirect to the correct tags if they try to use it in a search anyway.

such a search does not preclude images in which rape and a consensual femdom/malesub relationship is present. You could further narrow it down with tags like duo, but that brings us back to my first point that you can't assume every user is an expert in your tag and search system.

Well, you can't search for that situation regardless. We do not have any tags identifying a consensual dominant/submissive relationship, and dominant/submissive are already heavily tagged across rape and forced posts, so changing those tags to always exclude rape just so that you can find the, like, maybe ten posts on the entire site that contain both consensual and forced situations with the same gender pairings within the same image would require a massive tag project, and I highly doubt it's a distinction that the average tagger would adhere to.

spe said:
uhh... okay, so if combo searches are too complicated for someone, how are they going to use female_raping male_raped? That's a combo search - let alone even knowing that these more niche tags exist. No, the average casual user is most likely just going to search rape. None of the proposed solutions interfere with that in any way. If they really want to find something specific, they'll have to learn what tags we use for that, no way around it. And if the tags are aliased, they'll just redirect to the correct tags if they try to use it in a search anyway.

Combo searches being too complicated for people is just one of the possible scenarios I identified (but honestly yes, that is an argument for keeping x_verbing_y tags). The bigger issue I mentioned is that new users won't be familiar with all your tags and their definitions. People aren't going to immediately understand that if they want to search for <gender>_raped they need to search rape submissive_<gender>; they're going to search <gender>_raped and then be confused when they get consensual submissive_<gender> content instead.

Again: You have to remember you're designing this system for people, not robots. Even if it's frustrating and redundant, you gotta idiot-proof this stuff.

Even aside from practical concerns, I also have to concur with @pleasletmein & @alphamule that aliasing these tags to dominant/submissive is, shall we say, a bad look.

(Actually, you may want to submit your own BUR for aliasing these tags to dominant/submissive just so we can get hard data on how many people prefer it to OP's suggestion.)

beholding said:
Combo searches being too complicated for people is just one of the possible scenarios I identified (but honestly yes, that is an argument for keeping x_verbing_y tags). The bigger issue I mentioned is that new users won't be familiar with all your tags and their definitions. People aren't going to immediately understand that if they want to search for <gender>_raped they need to search rape submissive_<gender>; they're going to search <gender>_raped and then be confused when they get consensual submissive_<gender> content instead.

Again: You have to remember you're designing this system for people, not robots. Even if it's frustrating and redundant, you gotta idiot-proof this stuff.

If somebody is searching for male_raped, I really doubt most of them don’t care if the results are female_raping or male_raping or various intersex options. Those are very different kinks, which means they’re going to have to learn use multi-tag searches anyway. And, generally, nothing in our tag system is designed to accommodate people using single-tag searches. Multi-tag searching is one of the most basic functions of the site and you’re not going to get very far without it.

…they're going to search <gender>_raped and then be confused when they get consensual submissive_<gender> content instead.

The results for these are already very similar. One is effectively a subset of the other, after all. I don’t think most people will even notice, let alone be confused. The amount of explicitly (and immediately recognizable as such) consensual domination/submission content is relatively small, and a lot of it arguably falls into questionable_consent territory from a purely TWYS angle, but most people aren’t going to look into it any further than that anyway.

Even aside from practical concerns, I also have to concur with @pleasletmein & @alphamule that aliasing these tags to dominant/submissive is, shall we say, a bad look.

Perhaps, but the tag system isn’t really designed to accommodate looks or feels, just function.
Would it look less bad if they were just implied instead?

(edit) I think the only argument I find compelling so far is one of convenience. I don’t think these tags are strictly necessary for finding the desired content (and they’re currently very undertagged for that purpose anyway), but having one tag automatically imply the relevant gender pairings/roles/the rape tag itself would be convenient, as well as having one less tag in a search.

spe said:
Perhaps, but the tag system isn’t really designed to accommodate looks or feels, just function.
Would it look less bad if they were just implied instead?

So, the other half of this is that the dominant/submissive tags are not very functional at the moment, as I brought up previously. They're subjective terms, so a tagger's idea of what is "dominant" may not match up with a searcher's idea of the same. They're currently very mistagged and undertagged, and their wiki descriptions are so broad as to be nigh-useless for narrowing down proper use. I think that any major alias or implication to dominant/submissive needs to clean up those tags first.

beholding said:
So, the other half of this is that the dominant/submissive tags are not very functional at the moment, as I brought up previously. They're subjective terms, so a tagger's idea of what is "dominant" may not match up with a searcher's idea of the same. They're currently very mistagged and undertagged, and their wiki descriptions are so broad as to be nigh-useless for narrowing down proper use. I think that any major alias or implication to dominant/submissive needs to clean up those tags first.

Well, an implication doesn’t need the implied tag to be cleaned up. Nothing bad will happen if some tags imply submissive and submissive is a mess. This would be true if it were the other way around, as a messy tag implying some other tag will introduce mistags into the consequent tag as well.

That said, the rape tag is actually quite a mess as well. A lot of it is lore tagged, and a lot of it is really just questionable_consent. A lot of the results don’t even look questionable, for that matter - there’s sometimes just no resistance or distress whatsoever. That’s probably the bigger issue with this idea.

spe said:
Well, an implication doesn’t need the implied tag to be cleaned up. Nothing bad will happen if some tags imply submissive and submissive is a mess.

But you're not proposing an implication, you're proposing an alias. If all <gender>_raped tags get dumped into submissive_<gender> and submissive_<gender> is a mess, people looking for <gender>_raped content are going to end up with a mess.

That said, the rape tag is actually quite a mess as well. A lot of it is lore tagged, and a lot of it is really just questionable_consent. A lot of the results don’t even look questionable, for that matter - there’s sometimes just no resistance or distress whatsoever.

This is true, and I made a TagMe to clean it up, but I think this is outside the scope of this discussion. rape isn't going to be made any more of a mess by renaming <gender>_rape to <gender>_raping, and may actually make it less of a mess.

(btw, as always I respect that you're very overworked, but when you have time, you can make rape a little less of a mess by approving my request to invalidate implied_rape)