Topic: Tag implication: obscured_anal -> anal

The tag implication #69146 obscured_anal -> anal is pending approval.

Reason: if a tree rams into a forest and no one's there to see it

The bulk update request #12102 is pending approval.

Reason: Sex acts can still be tagged even if involved body parts are blocked from view.

The bulk update request #12103 is pending approval.

create implication obscured_text (16) -> text (1454497)
create implication obscured_handjob (17) -> obscured_sex (3004)
create implication obscured_handjob (17) -> obscured_penile (0)

Reason: To know some text is obscured, some of it must be visible.
I forgot some obscured_handjob implications, and there's not enough room in the previous BUR.

text is not meta, since you can recognise that something is text without needing outside knowledge, and so neither should obscured text be meta

snpthecat said:
text is not meta, since you can recognise that something is text without needing outside knowledge, and so neither should obscured text be meta

Ah, ok. Fixed!

crocogator said:
Reason: To know some text is obscured, some of it must be visible.

Which seems at odds with the other uses of "obscured" to mean completely unseen. Perhaps partially_obscured_text would be a better name for it? Seems obscured_sex also suffers this, for partially obscured sex instead of fully obscured, with the added complication that the amount of it being obscured is left vague. Given that physical anatomy will prevent everything being shown in full during sex, how do we determine when it's "partially obscured" vs not? post #5817015 being a recent example which isn't an uncommon depiction of rimming (size of the characters not withstanding), couldn't some of this be considered the default or at least very common to the point that the tag is just pointing out the obvious?

snpthecat said:
text is not meta, since you can recognise that something is text without needing outside knowledge, and so neither should obscured text be meta

That isn't really how the meta category works, watermark was kept in meta despite a successful attempt to move it into general in topic #39753
english text and the other language text tags are also in the meta category, it's a mixed bag with no true consensus, it really feels more "vibes" based
Though I wouid agree that obscured text doesn't belong in meta if text itself is not in meta

donovan_dmc said:
That isn't really how the meta category works, watermark was kept in meta despite a successful attempt to move it into general in topic #39753

Fine, I did say before that meta tags are kinda based on vibes, but as a brief overview my previous explanation was sufficient

english text and the other language text tags are also in the meta category, it's a mixed bag

It's because of the language in particular, not the text part. We've established something being obscured doesn't make it meta, and something being text doesn't (necessarily) make it meta either, and something being the combination of the two (without anything else) wouldn't make it meta

I would say that the distinction is that general category tags describe the content of the scene depicted in the artwork, while meta tags are for things outside of the 'scene'. Things like watermarks, aspect ratios, color schemes, etc. are not intrinsically part of the scene being depicted in the artwork. Text is weird because it can easily be either, but I guess general category is better for cases like that.

donovan_dmc said:
english text and the other language text tags are also in the meta category, it's a mixed bag with no true consensus, it really feels more "vibes" based

spe said:
I would say that the distinction is that general category tags describe the content of the scene depicted in the artwork, while meta tags are for things outside of the 'scene'... Text is weird because it can easily be either, but I guess general category is better for cases like that.

You can think of it this way: TWYS tells us there's text of some sort in the picture, so General is appropriate for the regular text tag. However, it's TWYK for determining what language that text is in, so tags like english_text, japanese_text, or spanish_text belong in Meta.

By that logic, obscured_text should be a General tag because you can directly see that it's obscured in the picture. It's not a particular language in and of itself, so isn't TWYK and belonging in Meta.

watsit said:
Given that physical anatomy will prevent everything being shown in full during sex, how do we determine when it's "partially obscured" vs not? post #5817015 being a recent example which isn't an uncommon depiction of rimming (size of the characters not withstanding), couldn't some of this be considered the default or at least very common to the point that the tag is just pointing out the obvious?

I guess obscured_sex (and obscured_masturbation) means "any mouth, anus, and genitalia being used for the sex act are completely blocked from view". It is true that tagging this is more useful for some sex act where it's a bit unusual, and less useful for sex acts where it's pretty normal. Apparently people are tagging these though, so it's best to make sure they have proper implications.

Absolutely terrible idea. This is TWYK not TWYS.

Obscured titfuck -> titfuck -> breast_play -> breasts

So now an image will be tagged with breasts even if they are entirely obscured and not seen in the image.

kyiiel said:
Absolutely terrible idea. This is TWYK not TWYS.

Obscured titfuck -> titfuck -> breast_play -> breasts

So now an image will be tagged with breasts even if they are entirely obscured and not seen in the image.

Then breast play shouldn't imply breasts, no?

Breast play is effectively the breast equivalent of penile, and you clearly can have penis in vagina (which clearly is penile) without showing either (post #5824108).

The bulk update request #12141 is pending approval.

remove implication foot_fetish (65903) -> feet (738163)
remove implication breast_play (67620) -> breasts (2046395)

Reason: You could have something like paizuri where just the breasts are obscured from view, you could have a footjob where that's the case too

_{Tangentially, I'm confused about the *_play -> *_fetish implications, but that's not entirely relevant to this BUR}

kyiiel said:
Absolutely terrible idea. This is TWYK not TWYS.

The obscured_* line of tags have existed for a while now and I would argue that it is not TWYK.
Elements visible on the scene would indicate that something is going on rather than nothing.

Obscured titfuck -> titfuck -> breast_play -> breasts

So now an image will be tagged with breasts even if they are entirely obscured and not seen in the image.

How would obscured_titfuck even work in that way if you can't even partially see the breasts on the character?

snpthecat said:
Then breast play shouldn't imply breasts, no?

You should never tag breast play without breasts. The implication is fine.

We should't be making negational tags implicate their negation. It's logically fallacious.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masked-man_fallacy

Rule: "We must tag what we see."
Proposal: alias obscured_anal -> anal

Reasoning: "Obscured anal" and "anal" refer to the same underlying act in reality (anal sex is occurring).

But under the tagging rules, what matters is how it is seen.

Tagging anal means the act is visible.

Tagging obscured_anal means the act is hidden/covered.

Treating obscured_anal as interchangeable with anal is like saying:

1. "I see obscured anal."
2. "Obscured anal is anal."
3. "Therefore, I'm seeing anal."

This is invalid, because seeing obscured anal != seeing anal, as one requires the act to be obscured, and the other requires the act to be visible, and its never actually seen.

It's very similar to masked man fallacy, which is "a false assumption that knowledge or a belief about an object can be used to correctly distinguish it from another object." Except in this case instead of distinguishing, the OP is conflating.

And my second argument: When I search sex, I want to see the actual sex, I don't want to see the covered up might-possibly-be-sex.

If someone wants to see obscured stuff in their search, they should include it manually. People who are searching for something are specifically wanting the act to actually be visible in the image. We shouldn't burden every user and make them add "-obscured*" to every search.

If you guys really want to have a tag that includes both visible and invisible acts, we can just create a new tag for it instead of messing up the current ones.

Rough example:

anal: visible anal
obscured_anal: anal which is occluded, hidden, not not visually confirmable
anal_act: presence/ocurrence of anal regardless of visiblilty

implicate anal -> anal_act
implicate obscured_anal -> anal_act

sex: visible sex
obscured_sex: sex which is occluded, hidden, not not visually confirmable
sex_act: presence/ocurrence of sex regardless of visiblilty

implicate sex -> sex_act
implicate obscured_sex -> sex_act

kyiiel said:
So now an image will be tagged with breasts even if they are entirely obscured and not seen in the image.

thegreatwolfgang said:
How would obscured_titfuck even work in that way if you can't even partially see the breasts on the character?

I think a problem here is what "obscured titfuck" even means. My, and presumably kyiiel's, interpretation is when the titfuck itself is obscured from view. No directly visible sex, likely no visible breasts, etc. However, the few posts currently with the tag seem to use it meaning titfuck + -penis, where the titfuck/breasts/sex is fully in view, but the penis alone is unseen. It'd basically be like saying this:
post #5776060
is "obscured anal sex" and also butt, as opposed to
post #3686059 *
being "obscured anal sex" and also butt. Which really goes back to my previous problem. What does "obscured" mean in these contexts, how obscured (or not) can it be and still count, and can we reasonably expect people to avoid incorrect use?

^* which ironically is tagged obscured_oral, but that's not the impression I get from it at all (the feet being at roughly the same distance makes me think they're both at the same level, their faces near each other, not one character's face in the other's crotch; there's no where near enough of a bump in those sheets to indicate the one is kneeling over the other to blow them). Which just goes to show how poor these tags can be.

kyiiel said:
You should never tag breast play without breasts. The implication is fine.

What's the difference between being able to tag anal without anus, being able to tag penile without penis, and being able to tag breast play without breasts?

Also,

would this be tagged footjob -feet, if the censor was a bit larger?
post #5709683