Implicating bisexual → straight
Link to implication

Reason:

As weird as it seems at first glance, technically speaking in no case should bisexual be tagged without having some sort of male/female sexual interaction in the post. Additionally, all posts tagged bisexual should have either lesbian, gay, or both, but there's no way to implicate those so it will unfortunately have to be done manually. The tag itself is probably undertagged (particularly for m/f/f bisexual pairings which tend to just be tagged with lesbian or straight for whatever reason) but we might as well work with the ones we have.

Bonus: If we get these sorted out, it should be possible to roughly search for bisexual m/f/f, m/m/f, and m/m/f/f pairings (bisexual lesbian -gay, bisexual -lesbian gay, and bisexual lesbian gay respectively).

I dunno, I feel like this could end up causing problems.

Halite said:
I dunno, I feel like this could end up causing problems.

I thought that too, but, as for the search, those could be avoided by searching gay/lesbian -straight/bisexual or vice versa.
But that might be more trouble than it's worth.

-1
post #589964

Images like this should only have the bisexual tag. Users looking for straight images are not expecting to see gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

TheHuskyK9 said:
-1
post #589964

Images like this should only have the bisexual tag. Users looking for straight images are not expecting to see gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Likewise users blacklisting gay would not expect to see that image in their results ever, but may not mind seeing m/f/f pairings. Without tagging it with gay, the bisexual tag is fairly unpredictable.

It should be noted that over half of the bisexual posts already have straight tagged (though posts with multiple images/scenes such as flash would probably be a bit of an exception here).

Against, for the same reason as TheHuskyK9.
In cases of threesomes or more, I feel that it'd be best to tag the orientation as a whole, instead of per character. Either as gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual; instead of mix of those. If a character is taking part in a bisexual threesome, I don't see how it can be called straight.

And users who search for gay aren't looking for images with straight content, and vice versa.

parasprite said:
Likewise users blacklisting gay would not expect to see that image in their results ever, but may not mind seeing m/f/f pairings. Without tagging it with gay, the bisexual tag is fairly unpredictable.

It can be predictable if we don't tag it with other orientation tags

It should be noted that over half of the bisexual posts already have straight tagged (though posts with multiple images/scenes such as flash would probably be a bit of an exception here).

And those should be fixed since they are incorrectly tagged

we could also revisit the whole
Gay => male_on_male
Straight => male_on_female
Lesbian => female_on_female
thing.

They're more descriptive of the reality of those tags, and much less likely to cause offense to the un-initiated who have their gay/lesbian/straight characters posted here, and want them tagged with the sexual orientation that they "are".

TheHuskyK9 said:
Users looking for straight images are not expecting to see gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

This is a true statement, but, carrying it through explicitly violates TWYS. I disagree with the notion that straight is a tag for 'things straight users might want to see' rather than a description of who is involved in an act.

The idea that straight can be used in the way you specify breaks down not only in the case of bisexual content, but also multi-scene images/videos.
If what you propose is, by and large, how people are actually tagging straight, then, in line with E621's general policy of replacing 'interest group' tags with 'concrete picture element' tags, we would probably need to fix it.

So I guess your post has helped me decide,
+1 on the bisexual --> straight implication

TheHuskyK9 said:
-1
post #589964

Images like this should only have the bisexual tag. Users looking for straight images are not expecting to see gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Actualy no, making them exclusive only makes it unsearchable.

The way we define the bisexual tag on here only means that a character is having sexual interactions with more than one gender at a time (although it doesn't include intersex, so this only means it is some combination of straight, gay, lesbian tags in a simultaneous pattern). It basically means "more than one of the pairing tags are happening simultaneously" definition. So it only really functions if it is also tagged with whatever those two other pairing combination tags are. So that people can search for / exclude out the ones they don't want to see. If the other tags are not on there, then people can't search for it OR exclude it and that makes everything harder to find.

It's also important to note, that someone who only wants to see the straight and nothing but the straight, will still have to exclude -gay -lesbian anyways. Because if they don't exclude those, then they will still get group_sex results, orgy results, and multiple images results which have more than one pairing going on in the background or other parts of the picture. So nothing really changes for those who want purely only one type of results, they have to take the same precautions anyways.

And for people who don't mind, they will still want to be able to find all of the male on female action in the straight tag, because that's what that tag actually means.
Or all of the male on male action under the gay tag, because that's what that tag actually means.
Or all of the female on female action under the lesbian tag, because that's what that tag actually means.

And if images with a character being pleasured both-gender-at-the-same-time gets any of those tags appropriate tags left off, then everyone's ability to search specifically for it or to specifically exclude any combination of straight, lesbian or gay becomes inconstant, frustrating and impossible. So the bisexual tag can't be exclusively either/or with the gay, lesbian, and straight tags. Those images still need them for everything to be searchable and for blacklists to work properly. It's not the tag you use if you as a viewer are straight; it's the tag you use if you want to find male_on_female content.

Ok

Then let's go with Halite's suggestion, and rename those tags to male_on_male, etc. Better than using the terms contrary to their meaning.

Genjar said:
Then let's go with Halite's suggestion, and rename those tags to male_on_male, etc. Better than using the terms contrary to their meaning.

I've been leaning that way too. (Will reply to that thread [forum #150289] in a minute in fact.) It's also more consistent with the existing male_on_cuntboy etc tags.

The only hurdle is how to handle whether the *_on_* means exclusively sex or not. It mostly means sex, but how do we handle kissing, cuddling and such if we limit it to only that? This needs solved anyways though, because the interspecies tag runs into the same grey zone and it would be good to get it all settled and clear.

No opinion on the *_on_* tag suggestions but I think adding gay and strait to bisexual tags would cause too many issues in that it overtags a picture and makes its harder for those browsing those tags. There really is no reason to have all those tags together unless there are multiple groups participating in intercourse separately.

As of right now it seems like the meaning of this particular tag is already somewhat muddled as it is. The small convenience of having it imply male/female is outweighed by the potential for issues (e.g., it getting used for intersex characters) so for now the implication is denied.