I'm not usually one for making forum topics, but I feel this is something that needs to be addressed and standardized.

Currently, it seems insertion is being used in lieu of penetration when the object is a dildo or something non-organic. What this does is create the need for several tags (insertion, anal_insertion, vaginal_insertion) which we're probably better off without, due to the increased potential for misuse. And they are often misused. So my question is, do we need a distinction between the two? Or should insertion imply penetration, or the other way around? Leave your thoughts here so we can get this crap cleaned up.

Insertion should go away altogether. Anal penetrations is anal penetration (same for vaginal penetration). This goes for penetrations with toys as well.

When I think of insertion, it brings up solo images to mind (post #126342), as opposed to penetration, with more than one person (post #211282)

It's also useful to have some sort of distinction between 'organic' penetration (i.e attached to another living thing such as a penis, regardless of gender) and 'inorganic' penetration (not attached to a living thing, such as a dildo, vegetable etc.) as well as an umbrella tag that covers, or excludes one of the two sets

Though, if the distinctions aren't actively maintained by all the users, those tags lose their inherent usefulness

Noo.. *_insertion is a great set of tags.

If you get rid of insertion, there's nothing to separate, say... a picture of a guy using a dildo on his girl, from a guy screwing his girl with a dildo laying on the ground next to them.

Do I think that there might be a BETTER word then insertion? sure. But is there something that covers both dildos, and vegetables and candy canes and bottles and other phallic objects?

I don't think so... and then you'll still need words to cover anal, vaginal and otherwise.

These tags considerably help to help users find what they are looking for. Otherwise there *is* no way to find those pictures..

I think ther'es a little bit of gray area in regards to, say, one character using a strip on, or double ended dildos or such, but insertion--or similar, should absolutly stay.

SnowWolf said:
Noo.. *_insertion is a great set of tags.

If you get rid of insertion, there's nothing to separate, say... a picture of a guy using a dildo on his girl, from a guy screwing his girl with a dildo laying on the ground next to them.

Sure there is. Sex. First one would have male female dildo vaginal_penetration, and the latter would have male female dildo vaginal_penetration sex.

The problem with insertion is it's extremely underutilized. Less than 25% of people tag dildo images with insertion rather than penetration. Besides, even with insertion images, penetration is still happening, whether it's with a dick, sex toy, or fingers. Saying that penetration shouldn't be used unless it's a real penis is silly, especially since so few people go by that.

ippiki_ookami said:
Sure there is. Sex. First one would have male female dildo vaginal_penetration, and the latter would have male female dildo vaginal_penetration sex.

Except, it wouldn't. Or.. well, it would, but not in all cases.

oral_sex implies sex (strange that anal_penetration does not imply sex...) (group_sex also implies sex..)

So the,, how to pick the guy using the dildo on the girl, from the guy perfrming oral sex on his girl with the toy near by? or anal sex?

and how does one pick out images where, say, there's a penis in one whole and a toy in the other?

but this IS a very legitimate fetish and I don't think we should make users have to search complicated strings to find what they're looking for... if joe users searches for male female dildo vaginal_penetration -sex that's like 5 of their 6 tags right there. they can't add anything in like postions, artists, species.... :C

The problem with insertion is it's extremely underutilized. Less than 25% of people tag dildo images with insertion rather than penetration. Besides, even with insertion images, penetration is still happening, whether it's with a dick, sex toy, or fingers. Saying that penetration shouldn't be used unless it's a real penis is silly, especially since so few people go by that.

the usage IS the problem here :C but this should be corrected by better tagging and making people more aware of the tags... or possibly adjusting the names of the tags.

Hmm.. let me think..

what about:

vaginal_sex implies vaginal_penetration
vaginal_sex implies sex
vaginal_insertion (or vaginal_object_insertion?) implies vaginal_penetration
vaginal_insertion (or vaginal_object_insertion?) implies object_insertion
anal_sex implies anal_penetration
anal_sex implies sex
anal_insertion (or anal_object_insertion?) implies anal_penetration
anal_insertion (or anal_object_insertion?) implies object_insertion

And that removes the ambiguity with what the tags are for.

we can even spin this out further:

anal_fingering implies anal_penetration
anal_fingering implies fingering
vaginal_fingering implies vaginal_penetration
vaginal_fingering implies fingering
anal_fisting implies_anal_penetration
anal_fisting implies fisting
vaginal_fisting implies vaginal_penetration
vaginal_fisting implies fisting

hmm.. the catch with this is that it'll kind of make vaginal sort of redundant...

right now, vaginal is implied by vaginal-penetration, vaginal fisting, double_vaginal, cunnilingus and vaginal fingering.

Maybe vaginal should stay since it covers stuff to do with the vagina that isn't penetration..

So, vaginal_penetration implies vaginal too I guess. plus a few other things like double vaginal implying vaginal penetration and such. and ditto similarly for anal related tags.

On related notes... a few random tags i've found that make me ಠ_ಠ

vaginal_dildo --46 posts
vaginal_vibrator -- 20 posts (vibrator has 850 posts. I refuse to believe that the other 830 are guys or anal vibrators :P

(both of those collected from the vaginal page)

anal_vibrator -- 33 posts
anal_toying --23 posts
anal_dildo -- 2

So the,, how to pick the guy using the dildo on the girl, from the guy perfrming oral sex on his girl with the toy near by? or anal sex?

and how does one pick out images where, say, there's a penis in one whole and a toy in the other?

but this IS a very legitimate fetish and I don't think we should make users have to search complicated strings to find what they're looking for... if joe users searches for male female dildo vaginal_penetration -sex that's like 5 of their 6 tags right there. they can't add anything in like postions, artists, species.... :C

vaginal_penetration -sex -solo? -lesbian if you need, that's still only 4.

As an aside, I'm against removing tags because they're not used enough - we should be encouraging their use. Perhaps a suggested tags list next to the entry field when editing an image, that would list e.g. vaginal_penetration and masturbation if the image has dildo tagged.

RenaKunisaki said:
vaginal_penetration -sex -solo? -lesbian if you need, that's still only 4.

but the biggest problem is, we're having to search vaginal_penetration -sex -solo and male female dildo vaginal_penetration and several other possible tag combinations all to find a few images at a time what we could find right now with the use of vaginal_insertion. and let's not even get started to how sticky stuff gets when we start bringing same sex, or intersex couples in there also..

As an aside, I'm against removing tags because they're not used enough - we should be encouraging their use.

Agreed. I'm for squishing stuff together when there's redundancy (breast_grope, breast_squeeze, breast_fondle..), I'm for changing tags to clarify things when the current tags are confused. I"m for making things BETTER.... but not just for getting rid of tags because they only have a few uses if they cover a specific idea that is clear...

Perhaps a suggested tags list next to the entry field when editing an image, that would list e.g. vaginal_penetration and masturbation if the image has dildo tagged.

That sounds like a potentialy very complicated bit of coding. But feel free to suggest it in the feature request thread. ... that said, maybe we coudl link a list that features a lot of the more commonly used tags... I dunno. There is e621:tagging checklist but tha'ts nto as easily found.. hrrrm..

There's already the related tags list. Could you just add a list of underused tags next to it?

RenaKunisaki said:
There's already the related tags list. Could you just add a list of underused tags next to it?

BEcause I don't think most people know how related tags works...

and, if we JUST mentioned the underused tags, people may see those as the only acceptable to use tags.. I was more thinking of a page with... well, a lot of tags.

something like:

Sex: Male Female Cuntboy Dickgirl Herm
Orientation: Straight gay lesbian
How many? solo couple threesome foursome gangbang orgy
clothing: top: topless bra shirt sweater tank top jacket bikini

etc for... more of the conceivable THINGS one would tag. some of the most common tags, and soem of the more UNCOMMON tags as well too. Multi-purpose :)

That's about what I had in mind... you'd show related tags (which, I'd assume, would be something like "find other images that have a few of the same tags as this one, and list tags they have that this one doesn't"), plus tags with a very low post count (which might be manually flagged as underused or not, to avoid things that just aren't common dominating the list).

RenaKunisaki said:
That's about what I had in mind... you'd show related tags (which, I'd assume, would be something like "find other images that have a few of the same tags as this one, and list tags they have that this one doesn't"), plus tags with a very low post count (which might be manually flagged as underused or not, to avoid things that just aren't common dominating the list).

Except not ^^;

I'm thinking of an entierly separate page that is linked under the tag box that results in a new page loading or a popup or something, rather then more text being loaded in on the page. I'm thinking 1 full, solid, list of stuff, rather then try and guess what might be relevant.

the 'related tags' feature works, If I'm not mistaken, by looking at the tag in question and seeing what other tags are most commonly on images with that tag. it's randomly generated by the system with a theoretical high accuracy. to generate tags with a LOW post count, you're going to get tags with 1 or two posts that were made by people who can't spell, or got "creative" while tagging (examples from searching anal*) anal_beads_of_death, anal_virginity, anal_intercourse, analpenetration, [anal_big]].

So, what YOU are proposing involves a lot of figuring out and a lot of coding, as well as constant admin intervention to keep up to date... I'm suggesting a wiki page, that anyone can update, and an additional html link on the post pages. ^^; And even if the link dones't made, there's a really useful utility in the list of tags.

but anyway. No one's commented on the idea regarding vaginal_sex, vaginal_object_insertion etc... thoughts?

I'll just throw in a quick opinion for everyone's consideration.

How about this:

[Implication]
vaginal_sex and vaginal_insertion -> vaginal_penetration
vaginal_sex -> sex
vaginal_insertion -> insertion
(and related anal tags)

[Alias[ (maybe as it could also be an umbrella term for vaginal, anal_insertion)
vaginal_object_insertion -> insertion Or object_insertion for that matter
anal_object_insertion -> insertion
That way insertion is an umbrella term like sex is and yet it can be combined with a penetration tag for clarity, without filling that search bar up.

A wiki page is a better idea... the main thing to me is to have the list right there where people will see it when tagging, not on another page that won't be seen as often.

RenaKunisaki said:
A wiki page is a better idea... the main thing to me is to have the list right there where people will see it when tagging, not on another page that won't be seen as often.

I feel you're contradicting you yourself
---
Imply anal_insertion, vaginal_insertion, anyotherplace_insertion to insertion, just to be more general. The same should apply to penetration

xLuna said:
Imply anal_insertion, vaginal_insertion, anyotherplace_insertion to insertion, just to be more general. The same should apply to penetration

as far as I know (i'm in a hurry and can't check this instant, this is true already.

Rainbow_Crash said:
I'll just throw in a quick opinion for everyone's consideration.

How about this:

[Implication]
vaginal_sex and vaginal_insertion -> vaginal_penetration
vaginal_sex -> sex
vaginal_insertion -> insertion
(and related anal tags)

[Alias[ (maybe as it could also be an umbrella term for vaginal, anal_insertion)
vaginal_object_insertion -> insertion Or object_insertion for that matter
anal_object_insertion -> insertion
That way insertion is an umbrella term like sex is and yet it can be combined with a penetration tag for clarity, without filling that search bar up.

vaginal_object_insertion currently doens't exist as a tag. The confusion between insertion/penetration is why I was suggesting it be made... Or did you mean imply?

xLuna said:
I feel you're contradicting you yourself

Yeah, could have worded that better. The list would be a wiki page so users can edit it, and that page's content would be shown next to the tag list.

Okay I decided to post in this thread cause....well it looks like it's dead with many issues unclarified, and plus I noticed that anal_penetration is aliased from anal_sex. Which doesn't make a lot of sense

Images and animations which explicitly show a character's anus being penetrated in a sexual manner, whether it be through fingering, anal sex, or anal play using a sex_toy.

How is fingering and showving a dildo up your ass sex?

I'd go with thise

anal_sex implies anal_penetration
anal_sex implies sex
anal_insertion (or anal_object_insertion?) implies anal_penetration
anal_insertion (or anal_object_insertion?) implies object_insertion

and plus anal_sex implies anal, and the same with vaginal, respectively I guess.

Forgot about this thread. So to summarize:
-alias vaginal_sex to vaginal_penetration, just like anal
-imply vaginal penetration, penetration, vaginal, and insertion from vaginal_insertion
-do the same with anal
-imply vaginal and penetration from vaginal_penetration
-same with anal
imply vaginal, fingering, insertion, penetration, and vaginal_penetration from vaginal_fingering
-do the same with anal

Does this about cover it?

ippiki_ookami said:
Forgot about this thread. So to summarize:
-alias vaginal_sex to vaginal_penetration, just like anal
-imply vaginal penetration, penetration, vaginal, and insertion from vaginal_insertion
-do the same with anal
-imply vaginal and penetration from vaginal_penetration
-same with anal
imply vaginal, fingering, insertion, penetration, and vaginal_penetration from vaginal_fingering
-do the same with anal

Does this about cover it?

All good, except fingering isn't insertion cause there's no toys involved.

Riversyde said:
All good, except fingering isn't insertion cause there's no toys involved.

are they not inserting their fingers into their sexholes?

ippiki_ookami said:
are they not inserting their fingers into their sexholes?

So insertion's not limited to sex toys? The insertion wiki and the fact nobody in this thread other than you has linked fingering to insertion say otherwise.

ippiki_ookami said:
Forgot about this thread. So to summarize:
-alias vaginal_sex to vaginal_penetration, just like anal
-imply vaginal penetration, penetration, vaginal, and insertion from vaginal_insertion
-do the same with anal
-imply vaginal and penetration from vaginal_penetration
-same with anal
imply vaginal, fingering, insertion, penetration, and vaginal_penetration from vaginal_fingering
-do the same with anal

Does this about cover it?

• vaginal_sex aliases to vaginal_penetration

vaginal_insertion implies vaginal_penetration
vaginal_insertion implies penetration
vaginal_insertion implies vaginal
vaginal_insertion implies insertion
vaginal_penetration implies vaginal
vaginal_penetration implies penetration
vaginal_fingering implies vaginal
vaginal_fingering implies fingering
vaginal_fingering implies insertion
vaginal_fingering implies penetration
vaginal_fingering implies vaginal_penetration

Assuming I follow that right.

Hm.

That means...

I have to say that I disagree :C like, a LOT.

this makes it so that the only way to find penis-in-vagina sex is vaginal_penetration -vaginal_insertion -vaginal_fingering. because there's no way to say +penis or whatever... because insertion, and fingering both mighth ave a penis involved without it being in the vagina.

PLUS, with vaginal_sex ALIASING to vaginal_penetration, we're relying on the tagger to tag 'sex'.. because vaginal_penetration should NOT imply sex (becuase a dildo in a pussy is not sex, a finger in a pussy is not sex. both of those can take place solo or with a partner.

I REALLY disagree with this and will reiterate (and modify a little) my above suggestion...

this results in..

And with that, vaginal sex is still clearly found, object insertion is easily found, and fingering/fisting is easily found. all tags clearly indicate what they are and what they do, while not requiring that a user use up the magority of their tags in a given search.

fisting is easily added in the same way as fingering, and anal equivalents are easily added as well, of course.

SnowWolf said:

Looks fine, except why are we using vaginal_sex if we don't use anal_sex?

Hm. we actually don't use vaginal_sex or anal_sex at the moment.....

...........

Crap. I had this figured out a month ago. Maybe it involved a bunch of careful implications before hand... but I"m not sure at all now.

... fuck. Um.

I Will come back to this in a few hours when I've had a little more time to think about this.

SnowWolf said:
Crap. I had this figured out a month ago. Maybe it involved a bunch of careful implications before hand... but I"m not sure at all now.

We need some kind of roadmap for this *grabs pencils and sheets*

Sounds good, Snow & ippiki et al

ippiki_ookami said:
Looks fine, except why are we using vaginal_sex if we don't use anal_sex?

Good question; I like the idea proposed of using *_penetration to mean all both types of penetration; insertions and sex. This solves the question of using anal_sex and vaginal_sex, while still keeping everything findable and simple (externally and internally tagging system-wise)
-
How about aliasing vaginal to vaginal penetration, anal to anal penetration, and using vaginal sex and anal sex for penis/clitoris/other sexual organ penetration only?

Why? That way,
if, for example, vaginal means the same thing as vaginal_penetration (i.e some kind of penetration, be it from a penis, object, hand, or finger),

and anal means the same thing as anal_penetration (i.e for the same reasons listed above),

• There'd be 2 less tags in use for penetration, instead of 4, which keeps the number of tags in use the same

• Makes implication much simpler - e.g vaginal_sex implying vaginal_penetration takes care of penetration, vagina and sex while keeping the original meaning without vaginal

---
Since there seems to be something of an agreement regarding previous implications/aliases, what about tags like urethral insertion, urethral penetration, nipple penetration, and nipple insertion?

In addition to your and Snow's et al aliases/implications;
Especially the aliases of:

alias insertion -> object_insertion
alias vaginal insertion -> vaginal_object_insertion

There'd be:

*Shiver*

I realize that when something is being inserted into a hole, it is penetrating. But you could also argue that if you're penetrating a hole with a penis, you're inserting your penis. The insertion and pentration tags should either be merged into one, or kept completely separate. I strongly support keeping them totally separate and am 100% not in favor of merging them. It's a distinction, it's an important distinction, and we should encourage its correct use, rather than rearrange the tags for misuse.

*_insertion is for when anything inorganic goes into a hole. Dildos, butt plugs, brooms, cars, etc.

*_penetration is for when organic things go into a hole. Penises, tentacles, fingers, tongues.

Huh. What about whole people? In anal vore images, do we tag it as insertion or penetration? My thought is insertion, 'cause it's probably not coming back out...

I'm in agreeance in some of the things stated above, but I believe some things really need to be clarified. It is obvious that both "penetration" and insertion" are related. However, what we percieve or think of when we hear the words "insertion" and "penetration" is different, which is causing most of the confusion in my opinion. So if I understand correctly this is what we are using:

• The connotation of insertion, or what we think of when we hear or see insertion, is an object (usually a dildo or the like, but can be a penis[?] or finger[?])* that is inside a vagina or anus. We think of the object already in the "hole."

• The dennotaion, or actual definition, of insertion is the act of putting or placing inside.

• The connotation of penetration is a sex organ (penis) physically entering, as in the current process of putting the penis in, a vagina or anus.

• The dennotaion of penetration is the act or power of entering the interior of, piercing, or passing into or through.

So we can see that one source of confusion is that we have turned "insertion" into a different meaning of "penetration" when in actuality they mean the exact thing. The word that actually fits our definition of "insertion" is inserted. Seeing that this may be one of the only reasons the two tags are kept apart, it is important we attend and correct this, to prevent further confusion. Either we change what we think or the form of the tag.

*This is the second source of confusion, what is actually being put inside. It seems that insertion has already developed a reputation for the use of objects, rather than body parts. In reality, insertion and penetration can be part of any object, penis or dildo.

It is important that we don't keep the two tags apart for both reasons, as that would cause trouble when filtering through the specifics.

On a side note: oral_insertion and oral_penetration are two other forms that aren't nearly as commonly used, but have the same significance as if it were anal or vaginal (in my opinion. After all, it is one of the three forms of sex.)

Are you suggesting that connotations aren't an important part of the meanings of words?

Snowy said:
Are you suggesting that connotations aren't an important part of the meanings of words?

I was comparing connotations with dennotations to help straighten out the mess. If in some way we redefine a word to suit our purposes, I'm in full support of that.

They actually do not have the same meanings. Similar, yes, but not identical. However, an image of a man with a butt plug in is veeeeery different from an image of a man with a penis in his ass, and so I think the two words should be clearly defined for our use as having different meanings in order to easily and effectively distinguish the two things, without a string of search terms.

I think the form of the tag is fine. When there is vaginal insertion going on, something is being inserted into the vagina, yes. So we tag it vaginal_insertion. This matches with our tagging conventions. If an image depicts a blow job, we tag fellatio, rather than fellated. The penis is being fellated, but it would be silly to assume that there is no motion going on in the situation, that the fellatio has occurred and is now frozen. We, instead, assume that it's what it is, a snapshot of fellatio actively going on.

True, images of insertion can be somewhat different. You can shove up a butt plug and just leave it there, and so you may have an image like post #237721 where the toy is already in there, and the character is not actively inserting it. Nonetheless, I think that because of the aforementioned congruence with existing tag convention and form, it should be "insertion," rather than "inserted." Then you'd have to change the leading word, to something like anally_inserted and vaginally_inserted, since now you're dealing with an adjective, instead of a noun. That just feels clumsy and totally doesn't mesh.

It is important that we don't keep the two tags apart for both reasons, as that would cause trouble when filtering through the specifics.

What
you mean insertion and penetration right

how would that cause trouble?
and what happened to *_sex? Has it been agreed that that's not going to be used?

KiwiPotato said:
What
you mean insertion and penetration right

how would that cause trouble?
and what happened to *_sex? Has it been agreed that that's not going to be used?

I can foresee that vaginal sex and anal sex are bound to be aliased away, but there doesn't seem to be a decision about splitting oral sex in oral insertion/penetration at the moment... just saying that oral insertion and penetration don't have nearly the same ring to them as oral sex does.

And can you denote who you're quoting properly please? It's harder to find the context of what someone's talking about if you don't post their name.

Wow this needs to be settled.
vaginal_insertion implies vaginal_penetration
vaginal_insertion implies penetration
vaginal_insertion implies vaginal
vaginal_insertion implies insertion
vaginal_penetration implies vaginal
vaginal_penetration implies penetration

Can we at least agree on this? I feel like this will be a step in the right direction, then we can tackle the other things people are discussing.

ippiki_ookami said:
vaginal_insertion implies penetration
vaginal_insertion implies vaginal

These two will be kind of redundant if vaginal insertion gets implicated to vaginal penetration.

The vaginal insertion -> vaginal penetration implication does sound okay to me, but I'll be happy as long as there's a way to search for inserting toys and penetrative sex separately.

ippiki_ookami said:
Can we at least agree on this? I feel like this will be a step in the right direction, then we can tackle the other things people are discussing.

Those implications sound good to me as well

How about simplifying that to:
implication vaginal_insertion -> vaginal_penetration
implication vaginal_penetration -> penetration

As well as the anal equivalents (and possibly for urethral/nipples too)

Riversyde said:
but I'll be happy as long as there's a way to search for inserting toys and penetrative sex separately.

Ditto

Snow's idea of aliasing vaginal_insertion -> vaginal_object_insertion etc. to help keep things categorized & more easily findable/searchable sounds good too

That way, people get to keep their object insertions and penetrative sex pictures separate, while still standardizing everything (due to the aliases and implications mentioned in forum #45535 (and possibly forum #45598 if sex gets used to distinguish between object and non-object penetration)

Riversyde said:
I can foresee that vaginal sex and anal sex are bound to be aliased away, but there doesn't seem to be a decision about splitting oral sex in oral insertion/penetration at the moment... just saying that oral insertion and penetration don't have nearly the same ring to them as oral sex does.

There's also the small issue that a lot of oral sex images have no insertion or penetration. Fellatio in the "licking" style, or any image of cunnilingus or rimming, for example.

Vaginal_insertion and anal_insertion now imply vaginal_penetration and anal_penetration respectively.

What about the anal_sex alias?

What about it?

ippiki_ookami said:
What about it?

I'm saying I think it should be dealiased.

ippiki_ookami said:
Wow this needs to be settled.
vaginal_insertion implies vaginal_penetration
vaginal_insertion implies penetration
vaginal_insertion implies vaginal
vaginal_insertion implies insertion
vaginal_penetration implies vaginal
vaginal_penetration implies penetration

Can we at least agree on this? I feel like this will be a step in the right direction, then we can tackle the other things people are discussing.

Necroing because currently both vaginal_fingering and anal_fingering are not implying neither penetration nor insertion.

My suggestion - imply (vaginal/anal) fingering to (vaginal/anal) penetration. It won't make troubles with anything even if we decide to imply it to insertion later, since insertion implies penetration anyway.