The bulk update request #8612 is pending approval.

remove alias pedophilia (0) -> young (236775)
remove alias paedophilia (0) -> young (236775)
remove alias pedophile (0) -> invalid_tag (-11)

Reason: Oh I know, this is a big change. But hear me out.

It's obvious that this theme is not very liked in the community and people have been really wanting a solid pedophilia tag to blacklist. We aliased that to young.

I suggest we bring it back and start using it on posts it applies to - scenarios that are obvious and sexualized situations in which minors are being preyed upon. Uncomfortable topic I know.

This is different from regular young and age play, as this specifically covers grooming and victimizing underage characters. Yes, there will be a crowd that sees we have this tag and complains, but they aren't the sort of crowd that has ever engaged with us in good faith anyway. The blacklist need outweighs that con, in my opinion.

rainbow_dash said:
The bulk update request #8612 is pending approval.

remove alias pedophilia (0) -> young (236775)
remove alias paedophilia (0) -> young (236775)
remove alias pedophile (0) -> invalid_tag (-11)

Reason: Oh I know, this is a big change. But hear me out.

It's obvious that this theme is not very liked in the community and people have been really wanting a solid pedophilia tag to blacklist. We aliased that to young.

I suggest we bring it back and start using it on posts it applies to - scenarios that are obvious and sexualized situations in which minors are being preyed upon. Uncomfortable topic I know.

This is different from regular young and age play, as this specifically covers grooming and victimizing underage characters. Yes, there will be a crowd that sees we have this tag and complains, but they aren't the sort of crowd that has ever engaged with us in good faith anyway. The blacklist need outweighs that con, in my opinion.

Sounds like a good idea, since it would carry into images that aren't as balant as having the MAP flag but may still involve the character being a pedophile (since not all young x adult chara images are as balant as that, or maybe intense? Sorry if that makes no sense lmao)
Only being able to blacklist pedophilia_pride_colors if you're someone who is triggered by that is very limiting.

I'm not against this, but I'm wondering how exactly this will be defined, if we're not just adding it to every adult on young post.

I feel like this is also good for images that 'young' wouldn't apply to but the implications are fucking obvious. post #2467442 comes to mind.

+1

While young -rating:safe is a default blacklist tag and that should handle most of it, there are instances like post #4772847 where the young are just present in a sexual situation but not involved/sexualized at all.
Definitely don't make it imply young since, like regsmutt said, there's some instances where there's no young characters present or none pictured. Could be implied or a statement.

Now if we could just find a way to prevent people from mistagging those posts as child abuse...

pleaseletmein said:
I'm not against this, but I'm wondering how exactly this will be defined, if we're not just adding it to every adult on young post.

It's definitely not the easiest to spell out, but it's very obvious. Grooming, preying upon, etc. It's the general theme of a predatory relationship.

I feel pretty confident that it would get misused a ton. That doesn't necessarily mean this shouldn't be done, but it would almost certainly be a high maintenence tag.

My main objection was that tags like adult on young and sex young_pen* covered a lot of these cases, but I can see someone wanting a better way to blacklist it so kind of undecided. It just doesn't feel like a very objective tag, as SCTH mentioned, so it will be 'high maintenance'.

It might be less controversial to have a generic stalking tag for this situation, in general, instead of just minors?

scth said:
I feel pretty confident that it would get misused a ton. That doesn't necessarily mean this shouldn't be done, but it would almost certainly be a high maintenence tag.

rainbow_dash said:
It's definitely not the easiest to spell out, but it's very obvious. Grooming, preying upon, etc. It's the general theme of a predatory relationship.

if we're going to have it be a "themes"-type tag, similar to stuff like bad_parenting, we might want the tag name to be a bit more specific than just pedophile or pedophilia. something specifically mentioning "predator" or "grooming".

The bulk update request #8613 is pending approval.

remove alias sexual_predator (0) -> invalid_tag (-11)

Reason: If we're thinking about unaliasing that other tag...

rainbow_dash said:
It's definitely not the easiest to spell out, but it's very obvious. Grooming, preying upon, etc. It's the general theme of a predatory relationship.

Not so sure that it's obvious from twys perspective. What kind of posts from adult_on_young wouldn't be included? Is dialogue taken into account, contrary to the usual tagging practices?

genjar said:
Not so sure that it's obvious from twys perspective.

we do have a few other theme/dynamic tags that function like this already, and they seem to do alright. although there's not really any of them currently that are quite as much of a hot button issue as this, so...

genjar said:
Not so sure that it's obvious from twys perspective. What kind of posts from adult_on_young wouldn't be included? Is dialogue taken into account, contrary to the usual tagging practices?

I think this is a fair point. Like other than edge cases of pretty specific 'adult in lore' images what wouldn't be predatory? Random opportunistic/mindless rape? Would "romantic" or "not explicitly romantic but there's definitely creepy subtext" safe-rated images qualify? Images like post #4743563?

scth said:
I feel pretty confident that it would get misused a ton.

Same. I feel this would get used a lot on "plain" adult_on_young posts with no apparent grooming or preying behavior, and even on just single young or young_on_young characters that are sexualized for the viewer. I don't think the tag would be very useful beyond 'sexualized young' contexts from that over-tagging. It will cause strife by existing but not being applicable to every sexualized young character, while also not being useful to its intended use due to over-tagging.

regsmutt said:
I feel like this is also good for images that 'young' wouldn't apply to but the implications are fucking obvious. post #2467442 comes to mind.

That doesn't seem like the kind of post this would apply to, given the condition of "sexualized situations in which minors are being preyed upon", "as this specifically covers grooming and victimizing underage characters". As there's no apparent grooming or victimization in that image, and there's no visible character being preyed on, that's the kind of post this tag would cause tag wars on. And just as people argue sleep_sex should be assumed rape/non-consensual by default, I could see people argue that a sexualized young character should be assumed victimization by default.

scth said:
I feel pretty confident that it would get misused a ton.

I also share this concern. Frankly, I worry that the misuse could dwarf whatever positive impact this change could have. Making "pedophile" into a valid tag in particular seems ripe for abuse. I can easily imagine users applying the tag to art of characters whose owners they dislike.

novusuna said:
I can easily imagine users applying the tag to art of characters whose owners they dislike.

If the tag alias gets removed, then that's very easily reportable. It's not exactly something you can mistag on accident or, for the young tag, use on images of characters that are debatably young.

I don't necessarily object to this, the idea is good and I believe many people would want to search or blacklist this, but I don't really imagine it working out well.

• So many people are going to slap "pedophile" on every young image they see - who's actually going to be patrolling the tag changes to make sure they're correct?
• A pedophile is just somebody attracted to children, not necessarily a predator, so it's going to be hard to explain to people that they're using the tag wrong when they're following the real dictionary definition.
• People will probably blacklist the pedophile tag and then get annoyed that plenty of adult_on_young content still slips by their blacklist.

alphamule said:
remove alias sexual_predator (0) -> invalid_tag (0)

Reason: If we're thinking about unaliasing that other tag...

This one might actually work out better, imo. There's less ambiguity when predator is actually stated in the tag name itself and then we've got a solution for both adult and young characters alike - children aren't the only ones preyed on. Searching sexual_predator young would probably provide accurate enough results, I can't imagine there'll be many false positives where the young character is actually the sexual predator, but a subtag could always be created that implies sexual_predator.

I... think this is going to be a mess, man, not gonna lie. Not only is this going to wind up getting mistagged, but I can see this getting used specifically in a malicious manner very easily. I would say if you're going to make this a thing, first of all it would likely fall into the realm of a lore tag, and secondly it would probably be wise in this case to have it be only able to be added by staff, or perhaps users with a priviledged status.

I don't think this is a good idea, but if you are set on it, there are ways to work around the issues inherent to this, assuming the site's coding can handle it.

Not really a fan of the tag name. It seems like a pedophile tag should be used for all adult on underaged situations, rather than ones that specifically feature grooming and victimizing the underaged character. I think this would be a great idea with a more specifically worded tag that is less ripe for misunderstanding on the part of taggers.

Like people said the tag will be misused a lot.

If its going to be approved I think the.name should be changed to child_predation, young_predation or something.

Given the points above, what do you think a better name would be for it to alias into?

Tag strings aren't acceptable. It needs to be a single tag that can easily be understood and added to a blacklist with a single click. Perhaps even the default blacklist. It's obvious what my goal is, it's just the means to get there that aren't as clear. I'm open to all suggestions.

Sexual predator is a good start. In the end, there might not be a clean solution to this that doesn't used some form of charged language.

If the purpose is to make child grooming a blacklistable tag, then bringing back pedophilia or its related tags will not accomplish that goal.
If anything, it makes the tags even more confusing if it is not used to refer to characters with sexual/romantic interests to young characters.

Introducing a tag like sexual_grooming would be more easier and non-contentious solution.
Not only does it involve instances of grooming of a minor, but it can also involve adults or other vulnerable persons.

I don't think sexual_predator would be a good tag as it does not really describe the scenario adequately.
The term is generally used to refer to "a person who habitually seeks out sexual situations that are deemed exploitative." This can include sex crimes, such as rape and child sexual abuse.

Thinking on this more I feel like the stickiest, ugliest part is going to be needing to take a position on stuff that's either not explicitly sexual (post #4261541) or things where it's unclear if the young character is acting under their own will (post #1882903).

And outright stating "this doesn't qualify as sexual predation or grooming because the child character is the top/dominant" feels like a dangerous thing to say.

i agree with regs on this one

i know we're always going to be hated by alot of people for being "that once site that allows all the cub" no matter what we do, and that the name of a tag doesn't always have to match up 1-to-1 what it means in the dictionary. but basically telling people "it's not pedophilia because the child is consenting" is a fucked up thing to say even in this context

rainbow_dash said:
Given the points above, what do you think a better name would be for it to alias into?

minor_exploitation?

I do find it curious that our sister site, F-List outright banned the mention of the term in an "any manner that theoretically faces the public", and have to wonder if this change would even be deemed advisable from the same standpoint? That seemed like something that came from high, and I assumed it was Dragonfruit or their legal department rather than internal to that fork of the community.

Perhaps we should put a hold on this and clarify before going any further? Would be silly to reinstate a tag only to be advised to remove it immediately.

Sexual predator is a good start. In the end, there might not be a clean solution to this that doesn't used some form of charged language.

I think sexual_predator is a good tag for this as a collective one, but is too inclusive. young_sexual_predator, sexual_predator, young_sexual_prey, and sexual_prey can cover most scenarios, including ones where the younger one is dominant or all participants are young. Since you want a single tag for pedophilia as a theme without "charged language", I think "sexual_exploitation_(young)" or "sexual_abuse_(young)" would probably be a broad enough option.

Perhaps we should put a hold on this and clarify before going any further?

This is something I kept in mind for my suggestion, even when pornographic works are entirely in the realm of fantasy, ages often don't come up for fear of legal retaliation, and some artists may have objections to their characters being tagged as minors.

notknow said:
Like people said the tag will be misused a lot.

If its going to be approved I think the.name should be changed to child_predation, young_predation or something.

I'm kinda leaning towards one if these. these seem to be the most descriptive and encompassing.

I also think we want to avoid these being worded in such a way that they're describing an individual, but rather word it in such a way that it describes the themes of the post itself.

I would love a tag that would let me blacklist images specifically fetishizing child abuse or legitimizing MAP trolling(that's just an anti-GSM dogwhistle btw) but this is not a word that should ever be used to describe drawings. If this word comes up it should be an emergency that demands immediate action to protect real children.

So, long time menber, first time forum poster. Respectfully, I disagree with this changes. It's already covered under the preexisting tags, and a similar request to change bestiality to zoophilia was rejected and someone mentioned refraining from adding more contentious words in the current political climate to tags on artwork.

arrow189 said:
I would love a tag that would let me blacklist images specifically fetishizing child abuse or legitimizing MAP trolling(that's just an anti-GSM dogwhistle btw) but this is not a word that should ever be used to describe drawings. If this word comes up it should be an emergency that demands immediate action to protect real children.

I also agree with this poster, in that words like that should be used for real children. I feel this will add more drama, and frankly paint targets on the posts for legal or political action against drawings of fictional animals.

This seems like a step in the wrong direction and will further open the door for arguments against harmless drawings.

faucet said:
...and then we've got a solution for both adult and young characters alike...

Yeah, was kind of the point. I am starting to get a hate on for overly specific tags and especially ones that sound like trollbait. Although the opposite (cub being for ANY young furries but only on a blue moon, and sometimes being used regardless if someone just felt like it) was admittedly not fun to deal with.

notknow said:
Like people said the tag will be misused a lot.

If its going to be approved I think the.name should be changed to child_predation, young_predation or something.

That would also be more consistent with both the intended meaning, AND with pattern of other tags names. Especially young_*+child instead of child_* pattern for those sorts of tags.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think sexual_predator would be a good tag as it does not really describe the scenario adequately.
The term is generally used to refer to "a person who habitually seeks out sexual situations that are deemed exploitative." This can include sex crimes, such as rape and child sexual abuse.

Was closest I could think of that already existed and is well-known/more likely to be searched/blacklisted. I guess something will be figured out.

lenkagetsu said:
I think sexual_predator is a good tag for this as a collective one, but is too inclusive. young_sexual_predator, sexual_predator, young_sexual_prey, and sexual_prey can cover most scenarios, including ones where the younger one is dominant or all participants are young. Since you want a single tag for pedophilia as a theme without "charged language", I think "sexual_exploitation_(young)" or "sexual_abuse_(young)" would probably be a broad enough option.

This is something I kept in mind for my suggestion, even when pornographic works are entirely in the realm of fantasy, ages often don't come up for fear of legal retaliation, and some artists may have objections to their characters being tagged as minors.

Child abuse isn't just sexual abuse! XD Sorry, misread that.

Now I'm trying to figure out what the letters GSM mean when that's one of the most overloaded acronyms, ever.

votp said:
I do find it curious that our sister site, F-List outright banned the mention of the term in an "any manner that theoretically faces the public", and have to wonder if this change would even be deemed advisable from the same standpoint? That seemed like something that came from high, and I assumed it was Dragonfruit or their legal department rather than internal to that fork of the community.

Perhaps we should put a hold on this and clarify before going any further? Would be silly to reinstate a tag only to be advised to remove it immediately.

I'm pretty certain we'd know if we weren't allowed to use a word. As far as I've been made aware we have no restrictions like that
We also have other tags such as pedophilia temptation and pedophilia humiliation
That sounds like a restriction F-List made up themselves for pr reasons

donovan_dmc said:
I'm pretty certain we'd know if we weren't allowed to use a word. As far as I've been made aware we have no restrictions like that
We also have other tags such as pedophilia temptation and pedophilia humiliation
That sounds like a restriction F-List made up themselves for pr reasons

Maybe they were right? :/

donovan_dmc said:
I'm pretty certain we'd know if we weren't allowed to use a word. As far as I've been made aware we have no restrictions like that
We also have other tags such as pedophilia temptation and pedophilia humiliation
That sounds like a restriction F-List made up themselves for pr reasons

I think one of the big differences here is F-List is effectively a list of real people's sexual interests, while e621 tags are just describing the contents of fictional images.

alphamule said:
Now I'm trying to figure out what the letters GSM mean when that's one of the most overloaded acronyms, ever.

I suspect, given the context, it means "gender and sexual minorities," which can mean either 'lgbt but without naming anything specific' or 'lgbt and paraphilias' depending on who is using it and why.

donovan_dmc said:
I'm pretty certain we'd know if we weren't allowed to use a word. As far as I've been made aware we have no restrictions like that
We also have other tags such as pedophilia temptation and pedophilia humiliation
That sounds like a restriction F-List made up themselves for pr reasons

This is probably because people were adding it to their lists and then getting screenshotted.

alphamule said:
Now I'm trying to figure out what the letters GSM mean when that's one of the most overloaded acronyms, ever.

regsmutt said:
I suspect, given the context, it means "gender and sexual minorities,"

Correct, I've been using it since the other acronym was half as long as it is now, and I figure it's evergreen. Since even LGBTQIA+ folks often cba to write it all out(which can lead to confusion/exclusion.) There are people not covered by that acronym such as the other Q and non-western cultures' takes on it like "two spirit." GSM also neatly sidesteps certain kinds of trolling about removing or adding letters.

Anyway, another thing I wanted to bring up, but seem to have over-edited out of my last comment. Remember before lore tags? How heated people got over TWYS gender, how personally some people took it? Now imagine we start tagging stuff as "pedophilia." Heck, couldn't that be a legal risk?

arrow189 said:
Heck, couldn't that be a legal risk?

I don't see how labeling content what it is would be a legal risk, we wouldn't host it if it wasn't legal

donovan_dmc said:
I don't see how labeling content what it is would be a legal risk, we wouldn't host it if it wasn't legal

I don't mean that it's illegal, I mean... imagine someone uploads a picture referencing that Shigure Ui video where she's been aged down and is teasing the viewer with a safety buzzer. People have already been harassed over that meme. Well now the usual twitter troll comes along, screenshots the art being tagged pedophilia, and blasts the artist leading to them losing a job or something. Couldn't the artist cook up some kind of a defamation case there?

arrow189 said:
I don't mean that it's illegal, I mean... imagine someone uploads a picture referencing that Shigure Ui video where she's been aged down and is teasing the viewer with a safety buzzer. People have already been harassed over that meme. Well now the usual twitter troll comes along, screenshots the art being tagged pedophilia, and blasts the artist leading to them losing a job or something. Couldn't the artist cook up some kind of a defamation case there?

We already tag characters that artists relentlessly say aren't underage as underage because they look like it
I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure putting a bit of text on something someone made is quite different from defaming them