post #4719573 keeps getting tagged as pregnant, i've removed the tag twice but it keeps getting re-added. what's the modus operandi here?

The girl is pregnant in the last frame, it says "9 months later" and the first frame had an ovum being penetrated by a sperm cell, it isn't relevant to e621 but on FA the artist tagged as "impregnation".

Why it isn't pregnant? She isn't showing leaking cum and there is no showing her she is "plugged", you need to prove more its cum inflation than pregnancy.

It keeps getting tagged as pregnant because that is obviously the intent. The first panel shows insemination, followed by a panel that specifies "nine months later" with the female character's belly now round.

I think your example is in fact pregnant, so it should be tagged as such.

In the future though, you can use the report button on the post and say “report tagging abuse” and explain the incorrect tagging and staff will respond to your ticket shortly thereafter, locking whatever tags they deem necessary or informing you what they do otherwise.

ZoidbergFanN1, what leads you to believe pregnant does not apply? There are so many signs pointing to pregnant.

zoidbergfann1 said:
post #4719573 keeps getting tagged as pregnant, i've removed the tag twice but it keeps getting re-added. what's the modus operandi here?

In the first frame, you can see a cum_inside scene a female and impregnation.
In the second frame, you can see a 9-month time_skip with the same female with a bulging belly.
The whole post is presented in a before_and_after manner.

With the best of the context provided in the post, it would be safe to assume that pregnancy has occurred rather than cumflation as you have thought.

aaronfranke said:
ZoidbergFanN1, what leads you to believe pregnant does not apply? There are so many signs pointing to pregnant.

i didnt see the time skip indicator, thought it was just inflation :/

thegreatwolfgang said:
In the first frame, you can see a cum_inside scene a female and impregnation.
In the second frame, you can see a 9-month time_skip with the same female with a bulging belly.
The whole post is presented in a before_and_after manner.

I'm not sure if we should take the "9 months later..." on its own as evidence of a scene change, since we generally don't use text as evidence for visual tags.

but, either way, there's really no indication of this being cumflation, the first panel shows the cumshot there's no evidence of any inflation at all, and in the second panel there's no leaking or any other evidence that it's cumflation. also in the second panel the bed then lacks the discarded condom from the first and had since been cleaned, meaning that these are two different scenes.

dba_afish said:
I'm not sure if we should take the "9 months later..." on its own as evidence of a scene change, since we generally don't use text as evidence for visual tags.

I think that generally applies for dialogue and in this case it would permissible to assume pregnancy through a text-cued time_skip. I don't think that would break TWYS either.
Otherwise, we would have tagged this as a case of rapid_pregnancy if we had ignored the text completely.