The null tag exists for characters that do not have any genitals, but it only applies when the crotch is actively being shown to not have genitals.

For consistency with other gender_(lore) tags, we should have a null_(lore) or null_gender_(lore) tag for characters that canonically do not have any genitals or reproductive organs of any kind.

null should be changed to a lore tag, IMO, rather than simply having a lore variant. Even a focus on a featureless crotch doesn't mean the character is null, nor a character being pleasured without visible genitals; it's not uncommon for public versions of posts to be censored to remove genitals (temporarily or permanently, for paysite purposes), or to have a censored version for sites that don't allow explicit porn, or an artist not being comfortable showing explicit genitals, leaving a featureless crotch as a focus/being pleasured, despite the character not being null. The distinction between a null character and featureless_crotch is entirely external information and can't be TWYS.

That aside, I do have some concerns about a null_(lore)-type tag. For family-friendly content, characters generally don't have genitals; often the creators may just be silent on the matter, but sometimes it could be mentioned by the creator somewhere that none of the characters have genitals to brush aside the issue for one reason or another. It would seem weird to me that because of an offhand comment, hundreds of posts would get tagged null_(lore) when it has no real bearing on anything and genitals wouldn't be shown anyway even if they weren't null (and because it has no bearing on anything, there's nothing stopping the creator from changing their mind about it in the future, as it wouldn't change anything we've seen about the characters).

watsit said:
null should be changed to a lore tag, IMO, rather than simply having a lore variant. Even a focus on a featureless crotch doesn't mean the character is null, nor a character being pleasured without visible genitals; it's not uncommon for public versions of posts to be censored to remove genitals (temporarily or permanently, for paysite purposes), or to have a censored version for sites that don't allow explicit porn, or an artist not being comfortable showing explicit genitals, leaving a featureless crotch as a focus/being pleasured, despite the character not being null. The distinction between a null character and featureless_crotch is entirely external information and can't be TWYS.

That aside, I do have some concerns about a null_(lore)-type tag. For family-friendly content, characters generally don't have genitals; often the creators may just be silent on the matter, but sometimes it could be mentioned by the creator somewhere that none of the characters have genitals to brush aside the issue for one reason or another. It would seem weird to me that because of an offhand comment, hundreds of posts would get tagged null_(lore) when it has no real bearing on anything and genitals wouldn't be shown anyway even if they weren't null (and because it has no bearing on anything, there's nothing stopping the creator from changing their mind about it in the future, as it wouldn't change anything we've seen about the characters).

Null characters can have a urethra or a null_bulge which doesn't really match featureless_crotch.

regsmutt said:
Null characters can have a urethra or a null_bulge which doesn't really match featureless_crotch.

A urethra would count as genitals, wouldn't it? Since it's part of the genitalia. Or at least nullo, indicating there used to be something more there.

But when you have posts like
post #4932796 post #4878795
being tagged null despite being completely normal SFW crotches. And between these:
post #4104517 post #4936796 post #4020279 post #3811407
two are null and used as wiki examples, while the other two aren't, with no visual indication in the image about why null should apply or why not.

watsit said:
A urethra would count as genitals, wouldn't it? Since it's part of the genitalia. Or at least nullo, indicating there used to be something more there.

But when you have posts like
post #4932796 post #4878795
being tagged null despite being completely normal SFW crotches. And between these:
post #4104517 post #4936796 post #4020279 post #3811407
two are null and used as wiki examples, while the other two aren't, with no visual indication in the image about why null should apply or why not.

Does an anus count as genitalia? The urethra can be built into the penis, but it doesn't need to be. It isn't (usually, some intersex variations excepted) built into either the clitoris or vaginal canal in humans.
But yeah, I do agree that the line between null and featureless_crotch is typically very thin. I do see the use of having the tag since it isn't quite 1:1, but having some clearer and better enforced guidelines would help. Regardless, I definitely don't think that bright green and pink dragon should be tagged 'null' since it doesn't even match the current tagging guidelines for it.
On a somewhat related note- should having a detailed anus disqualify an image from featureless_crotch?
post #4909547

regsmutt said:
But yeah, I do agree that the line between null and featureless_crotch is typically very thin. I do see the use of having the tag since it isn't quite 1:1, but having some clearer and better enforced guidelines would help. Regardless, I definitely don't think that bright green and pink dragon should be tagged 'null' since it doesn't even match the current tagging guidelines for it.

that's kinda why we'd want null to be a lore tag. "null" is more of a descriptor of what a character _is_ rather than how a character looks or acts or anything; describing what a character is is usually a job for lore tags. breaking it off from even trying to act like it's a normal TWYS tag to lore standard would probably make it easier for everyone.

dba_afish said:
that's kinda why we'd want null to be a lore tag. "null" is more of a descriptor of what a character _is_ rather than how a character looks or acts or anything; describing what a character is is usually a job for lore tags. breaking it off from even trying to act like it's a normal TWYS tag to lore standard would probably make it easier for everyone.

The only issue I have with it being a lore tag is the instances where it can fit into twys and doesn't quite fit other tags- like having features that would disqualify it from featureless_crotch or tf sequences where the 'null' aspect is more explicit. I think it's somewhere between a physical descriptor tag (no genitals), a fetish/focus tag (it has to be sexualized/highlighted), and an identity tag (since there's multiple ways you can portray 'no genitals'). Though it's in that murky grey-area between lore and general tags, I'd lean towards keeping it general because it does have required visible features (or... uh. lack thereof) and focus/fetish tags are kept in general despite often being confused for the non-sexualized versions (feces vs scatplay as an example).

regsmutt said:
The only issue I have with it being a lore tag is the instances where it can fit into twys and doesn't quite fit other tags- like having features that would disqualify it from featureless_crotch or tf sequences where the 'null' aspect is more explicit. I think it's somewhere between a physical descriptor tag (no genitals), a fetish/focus tag (it has to be sexualized/highlighted), and an identity tag (since there's multiple ways you can portray 'no genitals'). Though it's in that murky grey-area between lore and general tags, I'd lean towards keeping it general because it does have required visible features (or... uh. lack thereof) and focus/fetish tags are kept in general despite often being confused for the non-sexualized versions (feces vs scatplay as an example).

well, we still have featureless_crotch and physical descriptor tags and stuff otherwise.

while it could be argued that there are some situations where a character could be pretty explicitly null, rather than just their genitals are hidden or invisible or whatever, I feel like null is still more useful as a lore tag than as a general tag. like, for example, you can have textual/visual/contextual evidence that a character in a post is transgender, the trans_(lore) is still more useful as a lore tag than it is a general tag.

something being a lore tag dosn't mean it can't be tagged using evidence from the content of the post, it just means you have the option of tagging via external knowledge.

dba_afish said:
that's kinda why we'd want null to be a lore tag. "null" is more of a descriptor of what a character _is_ rather than how a character looks or acts or anything; describing what a character is is usually a job for lore tags. breaking it off from even trying to act like it's a normal TWYS tag to lore standard would probably make it easier for everyone.

I've pretty much seen null as just something like presenting_featureless_crotch. In many posts there doesn't seem to be any evidence showing it's null for lore reasons.

I agree with changing to a lore tag, including sending the existing tag to disambiguation so that the tags can be migrated to either null_(lore) or featureless_crotch.