Topic: Lead us always into "Temptation"

I'm no stranger to personal tag crusades...but this tag is so woefully underdeveloped and poorly defined compared to what its related to that I feel like it and its subsidiaries should be discussed together. That tag is temptation, and until we fix this one I fear the others, feral temptation, incestuous temptation, and pedophiliac temptation can't be fixed in good faith, nor their surrounding humiliation themes.

So...how did we get here? Well it began here post #5824633 with the first appearance of the incestuous temptation tag, a very sudden and curious addition because A) It showed up 82 pages into a story all about the family beginning to tease, taunt, and flaunt with one another, B) the tag itself, currently at a little over 500 posts, is vastly overshadowed by the massive wall over 60k posts of incest itself, and C) despite seemingly being straightforward, because of its sudden appearance I couldn't tell where temptation ends and regular old incest begins.

Fast forward to today, finish catching up with the above comic and decide to browse the tags related to it, finding a feral temptation has an even greater disparity of 106 post to bestiality's 96k, with a bit of overlap with bestiality humiliation (which is also shockingly low, at 129 posts. What was going on? how could these tags be so malnourished?

Then I went to the plain old Temptation tag...and realized just how broad "temptation" could be. There seems to be no cohesion between posts, most of which dont even match the very sparse wiki description, which reads:

Temptation is a craving to violate a moral standard. This usually pertains to devout or pious individuals.

This definition is next to useless when some posts such as post #5803544 post #5395011 post #4247709 could easily fall under something like seductive or inviting instead.

However, as we see with its subsidiaries of the pedo post #5055879, feral post #4916553, and incest post #4307488 varieties, they would meet the moral standard violations mentioned before. Not only that, but there are other definitions of temptation that push it even wider.

post #5069459 post #2559062 post #5703541 Bring temptation of food or drinks to the forefront, and if considering the Oxford definition, which reads:

the desire to do something, especially something wrong or unwise. Or, a thing or course of action that attracts or tempts someone

untagged (currently) posts like post #1596554 post #1598213 and others like it could definitely fit the bill. We didnt even touch on the potential of corruptive artifacts, magic, or forms of suggestion.

So what do we do about it? personally, despite chaos, I do think it and its related tags can help fill a nice even still, it just needs be further fleshed out at its base, and then probably expanded on with new variants of the tag to cover food, dark thoughts, magic, comedically silly or dangerous situations, and so on. I'd also like to propose implications for temptation for all its related tags, the merging or expunging of the tempting tag, and discussions of what separates the temptations from the actual acts (and when, if they do, do they both coexist on the same pages) depending on discussions it may be necessary to make temptation tags for other big untagged overlaps like pokephilia, vore, and other uncovered topics.

TL;DR Summary: the temptation and related tags are a mess, but can potentially be salvaged. Temptation could benefit from having stronger definitions which would in turn make related definitions more defined. Other types of temptation may need to be created to fit new such definitions, with appropriate implications and aliases in tow. a BUR may be needed in the future once definitions are laid down.

I originally created feral_temptation as a bestiality equivalent to pedophilia_temptation and pedophilia_humiliation. I'll focus on this tag, since I'm obviously familiar with it.

(As an aside, before anyone says it, yeah, I probably should've used bestiality in the tag name rather than feral. I'll leave it at that and not dwell at this point too much.)

As far as I'm concerned, the tag is a humiliation theme for dialogue that alludes to a taboo around bestiality. This taboo is generally referenced rather indirectly though:

post #5043450 "I've seen your browsing history... I know you're curious~". Given the context, curious = sex with a feral dog. This would be bestiality because the viewer can generally be assumed to be human. The picture doesn't explicitly state that bestiality is taboo in this universe, but it also certainly doesn't NOT say that, and it seems to be what the artist/character was getting at.

Is this equivalent to bestiality_humiliation (a tag that was later created by someone else)? Maybe? I dunno, I'm going off zero sleep right now and would have to think about that...

There probably are implications that can be made for these. Can pedophilia_temptation and feral_temptation really exist without young and feral, respectively?

crocogator said:
I originally created feral_temptation as a bestiality equivalent to pedophilia_temptation and pedophilia_humiliation. I'll focus on this tag, since I'm obviously familiar with it.

(As an aside, before anyone says it, yeah, I probably should've used bestiality in the tag name rather than feral. I'll leave it at that and not dwell at this point too much.)

Firstly, thanks for creating the tag and showing up for the discussion! And yeah, we may need to change the tag name a bit later, but we can focus on the discussion at hand first.

As far as I'm concerned, the tag is a humiliation theme for dialogue that alludes to a taboo around bestiality. This taboo is generally referenced rather indirectly though:

post #5043450 "I've seen your browsing history... I know you're curious~". Given the context, curious = sex with a feral dog. This would be bestiality because the viewer can generally be assumed to be human. The picture doesn't explicitly state that bestiality is taboo in this universe, but it also certainly doesn't NOT say that, and it seems to be what the artist/character was getting at.

Interesting...so at least in the feral case, dialogue is vital to implementation of the trope/tag. What then, do we do with all the pics with no dialogue but also would be looking at the viewer and presenting? Pokemon immediately comes to mind, for example. post #5589419 no dialogue, but the setting in the background appears to be a backyard, looking at the viewer, and spread wide. would it only then be temptation if dialogue is involved, or can it be inferred without? If there are two pictures from the same artist from the same scene, one with dialogue and one without, does temptation only get added to one and not both? post #5409723 post #5409755

Is this equivalent to bestiality_humiliation (a tag that was later created by someone else)?

While similar, I think the degradation or teasing is different from being alluring or tempting. While they may often overlap, there are several picks where a feral really REALLY wants the viewer inside them without being demeaning about it. post #5783077 This is also why I feel like pokephilia may need its own temptation tag, as even though the viewer here is referred to as "trainer", neither bestiality nor pokephilia have yet been applied, making me wonder if there are many more pics that fall through the cracks temptation tags can provide.

crocogator said:
the tag is a humiliation theme for dialogue that alludes to a taboo around bestiality. This taboo is generally referenced rather indirectly though:

[...] This would be bestiality because the viewer can generally be assumed to be human. The picture doesn't explicitly state that bestiality is taboo in this universe, but it also certainly doesn't NOT say that, and it seems to be what the artist/character was getting at.

Seems to be relying on quite a bit of assumptions, allusions, and inferring artist intent, which aren't very good to base tags on. The meaning of dialog is something to avoid basing tags on (I know we do it sometimes, but it's still generally discouraged), since not everyone will necessarily read it the same way, different languages can muddle the way people understand something, and it relies a lot on how people want to feel about it. That example in particular says nothing about what or who they're talking to, it could be another feral, and/or referring to someone's first time having sex. It's as much bestiality temptation as pedophilia temptation, for all we can see.

Additionally, "temptation" to me implies a level of resistance someone's trying to break through, and according to wikipedia, it's "a desire to engage in short-term urges for enjoyment that threatens long-term goals". So there's some reason it hasn't happened beyond not having happened yet. Simply enticing or inviting someone into doing an act isn't in itself temptation, especially in one-off fictional images where there's no indication of social mores or taboos or any visible reason why it hasn't happened. Imagine if it was part of a series where it was made clear that bestiality was acceptable, or it was okay with talking ferals, or the viewer was shown to be another feral or cub character, but this image needs to be tagged on its own without outside knowledge as per TWYS. I don't think many people would tag it the same way despite working with the same visual information.

crocogator said:
Is this equivalent to bestiality_humiliation (a tag that was later created by someone else)? Maybe? I dunno, I'm going off zero sleep right now and would have to think about that...

Humiliation is an act of degradation, speaking down to or negatively of someone about something. I might go as far as to say temptation and humiliation are mutually exclusive, since temptation is about breaking through barriers preventing someone from doing something, while humiliation is re-enforcing those barriers (even if the character doing the humiliation is still forcing the other into it, or if the character being humiliated has a humiliation kink).

omnomynous said:
Interesting...so at least in the feral case, dialogue is vital to implementation of the trope/tag. What then, do we do with all the pics with no dialogue but also would be looking at the viewer and presenting? Pokemon immediately comes to mind, for example. post #5589419 no dialogue, but the setting in the background appears to be a backyard, looking at the viewer, and spread wide. would it only then be temptation if dialogue is involved, or can it be inferred without?

Aside from what I said before about "temptation" being more than simply enticing or inviting someone to do something, another thing to consider is that we generally avoid treating the viewer as a character. We have tags like looking_at_viewer/talking_to_viewer/winking_at_viewer that are separate from looking_at_another/talking_to_another/winking_at_another, and an unseen viewer never counts toward the character count tags. Even when they're interacting with the viewer, we don't tag them as another character unless some part of them is visible (e.g. we see their arms or a snout coming out from the bottom of the image, to give the visual impression we're looking through their eyes), and then we only tag what we can see of them. If we don't see another human/humanoid/anthro, we don't assume they are or aren't one, and don't assume anything about what they're doing or about to do. This is an issue I've seen on occasion, where a solo character presenting their genitals to the viewer is inappropriately tagged imminent_sex, despite no other character visible for them to start having sex with.

watsit said:
Seems to be relying on quite a bit of assumptions, allusions, and inferring artist intent, which aren't very good to base tags on. The meaning of dialog is something to avoid basing tags on (I know we do it sometimes, but it's still generally discouraged), since not everyone will necessarily read it the same way, different languages can muddle the way people understand something, and it relies a lot on how people want to feel about it. That example in particular says nothing about what or who they're talking to, it could be another feral, and/or referring to someone's first time having sex. It's as much bestiality temptation as pedophilia temptation, for all we can see.

Additionally, "temptation" to me implies a level of resistance someone's trying to break through, and according to wikipedia, it's "a desire to engage in short-term urges for enjoyment that threatens long-term goals". So there's some reason it hasn't happened beyond not having happened yet. Simply enticing or inviting someone into doing an act isn't in itself temptation, especially in one-off fictional images where there's no indication of social mores or taboos or any visible reason why it hasn't happened. Imagine if it was part of a series where it was made clear that bestiality was acceptable, or it was okay with talking ferals, or the viewer was shown to be another feral or cub character, but this image needs to be tagged on its own without outside knowledge as per TWYS. I don't think many people would tag it the same way despite working with the same visual information.

Aside from what I said before about "temptation" being more than simply enticing or inviting someone to do something, another thing to consider is that we generally avoid treating the viewer as a character. We have tags like looking_at_viewer/talking_to_viewer/winking_at_viewer that are separate from looking_at_another/talking_to_another/winking_at_another, and an unseen viewer never counts toward the character count tags. Even when they're interacting with the viewer, we don't tag them as another character unless some part of them is visible (e.g. we see their arms or a snout coming out from the bottom of the image, to give the visual impression we're looking through their eyes), and then we only tag what we can see of them. If we don't see another human/humanoid/anthro, we don't assume they are or aren't one, and don't assume anything about what they're doing or about to do. This is an issue I've seen on occasion, where a solo character presenting their genitals to the viewer is inappropriately tagged imminent_sex, despite no other character visible for them to start having sex with.

I think its safe to say if they are looking at the viewer/talking to the viewer and there is no follow up, we can infer they are meant to be talking to us as a stand in unless there is a follow up image or added context that proves otherwise. Furthermore, the talking to viewer page and looking at viewer page makes it clear that we, the viewer, become the character of interest. So for the purposes of tagging, we have to assume that we are character in that setting, likely a human until proven otherwise, and can infer more intent from there.

On the topic of that definition, I feel its less that there is a natural resistance and more that there should be. Someone being bribed with 100 bucks to suck a dick on the spot could be considered a temptation, for example. Another could be someone making an impulsive purchase after seeing a sparkly new dildo for sale. A temptation doesnt always have to be morally wrong or unwise, they just often are. Kind of a reason why i'd like to nail down what regular temptation is and then try to look at the others while we're at it.

omnomynous said:
Furthermore, the talking to viewer page and looking at viewer page makes it clear that we, the viewer, become the character of interest.

Not for character tagging purposes, only in determining whether those tags apply. If we only see a single anthro character talking to the viewer, it's tagged solo+anthro, not human or duo or any other tag indicating a second character.

omnomynous said:
So for the purposes of tagging, we have to assume that we are character in that setting, likely a human until proven otherwise, and can infer more intent from there.

That would basically make something like post #5859066, duo+interspecies+human. Most solo anthro presenting images would be tagged that, and similarly most solo feral presenting would be duo+human+bestiality, if we assume the viewer is a human character in the scene.

omnomynous said:
Someone being bribed with 100 bucks to suck a dick on the spot could be considered a temptation, for example.

Bribery by definition is an attempt to pay someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't do, meaning there is a resistance to the character simply sucking a dick and they're being tempted with personal/monetary gain to get over that resistance.

omnomynous said:
Another could be someone making an impulsive purchase after seeing a sparkly new dildo for sale.

I wouldn't consider that to be temptation. It's doing something as soon as it's possible to do. You have to not want to do something to be tempted to do it, otherwise it's just accepting an offer.

watsit said:

Bribery by definition is an attempt to pay someone to do something they otherwise wouldn't do, meaning there is a resistance to the character simply sucking a dick and they're being tempted with personal/monetary gain to get over that resistance.

I wouldn't consider that to be temptation. It's doing something as soon as it's possible to do. You have to not want to do something to be tempted to do it, otherwise it's just accepting an offer.

Noted for future reference if we get a BUR to add an implication for bribery. Also, a temptation is an invitation, an offer, an urge, usually with a risk, immorality, or consequence attached. However, I think that definition is wrong. you can't be tempted by something you don't want to do because the temptation itself would fail. A temptation is a synonym for being alluring, maybe even intoxicating, a soft pull that only asks you not to resist. Whether that person succumbs to that temptation or resists it can be seperate tags of their own. from the same wikipedia article, in the non-religious section:

Temptation is usually used in a loose sense to describe actions which indicate a lack of self-control. Temptation is something that allures, excites, and seduces someone. Successful endeavors of goal-driven activity is threatened by the tempting nature of immediate pleasure. Infatuation can also lead to temptation as someone might do something for love in spite of one's better judgement.

In advertising, temptation is a theme common to many of the marketing and advertising techniques used to make products more attractive.

And now I'm starting to realize something while looking through more definitions...I think my earlier attempt to try to differentiate temptation from existing popular tags was flawed from the start.. inviting, seduction, and "presenting" all use synonyms for tempt or entice. They are linked to the point that the very word alluring aliases to seduction now, and I'm starting to see the rhyme or reason to the tag where I originally saw none. The thing that helps temptation stand out above the crowd is the allure isnt restrained to just sexual conduct, and therefore can cover a much broader range of posts.

For now, let me offer this as a first draft definition, based on our findings: A Temptation is the act, desire, condition, or cause of something that's considered attractive, enticing, or persuasive. Oftentimes it is coupled with the implication that the act is considered wrong, unwise, or impulsive in the long term. In sexual contexts, it is the pull towards something or someone being seductive or inviting,. In more religious contexts, its the pull to do something considered obscene, evil, or sinful, while knowing that it is such. Temptations can take manys forms, from financial compensation for unfavorable jobs, delicious looking food, corrupting influences like magic or drugs, or acts considered obscene. If they happen to pull away or decline to partake in the temptation, its resisting temptation. If they indulge in it, its succumbing to temptation

omnomynous said:
A Temptation is the act, desire, condition, or cause of something that's considered attractive, enticing, or persuasive. Oftentimes it is coupled with the implication that the act is considered wrong, unwise, or impulsive in the long term. In sexual contexts, it is the pull towards something or someone being seductive or inviting,. In more religious contexts, its the pull to do something considered obscene, evil, or sinful, while knowing that it is such. Temptations can take manys forms, from financial compensation for unfavorable jobs, delicious looking food, corrupting influences like magic or drugs, or acts considered obscene. If they happen to pull away or decline to partake in the temptation, its resisting temptation. If they indulge in it, its succumbing to temptation

This honestly sounds too broad and subjective to be useful. "attractive, enticing, or persuasive" is almost all art here to someone, and "wrong, unwise, or impulsive", "obscene, evil, or sinful" will depend on a person's judgment. A nude female cow hoisting her breasts for the viewer will be attractive and enticing to some people and not others. A feral dragon presenting themself to a human may be obscene, evil, or sinful to some people and not others (and probably dependent on whether it has emotive human-like eyes, or can talk). Given the earlier example:
post #5043450
Not everyone will find this "attractive, enticing, or persuasive" while others will, and some may see it as "obscene, evil, or sinful" while others won't. Especially as we don't see a response by who's she's talking to, we don't see and can't tag based on how they feel about the proposition (and we definitely shouldn't tag based on how the viewer is intended to feel, as that's completely subjective). Even if they're generally into ferals, they could see their own in a completely platonic/familial light:
post #576946 post #1119417

watsit said:
This honestly sounds too broad and subjective to be useful. "attractive, enticing, or persuasive" is almost all art here to someone, and "wrong, unwise, or impulsive", "obscene, evil, or sinful" will depend on a person's judgment. A nude female cow hoisting her breasts for the viewer will be attractive and enticing to some people and not others. A feral dragon presenting themself to a human may be obscene, evil, or sinful to some people and not others (and probably dependent on whether it has emotive human-like eyes, or can talk). Given the earlier example:
post #5043450
Not everyone will find this "attractive, enticing, or persuasive" while others will, and some may see it as "obscene, evil, or sinful" while others won't. Especially as we don't see a response by who's she's talking to, we don't see and can't tag based on how they feel about the proposition (and we definitely shouldn't tag based on how the viewer is intended to feel, as that's completely subjective). Even if they're generally into ferals, they could see their own in a completely platonic/familial light:
post #576946 post #1119417

That's the thing with temptations, though: It sounds broad because it is broad. As discussed earlier, Seductive and Inviting literally use enticing or tempt in their definitions. They are in the process of tempting, therefore the act itself should be a temptation. The offer made is the temptation itself. the viewer doesnt have to be attracted to label something seductive, thats not how that tag works. Its the character purposefully trying to charm or tempt someone that makes it seductive. Something I also believe to be important to maintain in these discussions is that while temptations are often paired with sexually enticing tags, it will indeed need to be broader by its very nature. When the tag is fixed up, it likely will be hundreds of thousands of tags wide, with its subsets in either thousands or tens of thousands.

EDIT: Like, to breakdown the example used earlier with the dog, lets look at the tags. bedroom eyes, multiple presenting tags, and on this specific post, the seductive tag was implied by something else, likely the bedroom eyes. So the viewer doesnt even need to have the right morals of it, the tags will add themselves. I feel like if that is an appropriate implication, then either tempting or temptation would also be appropriate.

That being said, there are a few routes we can go with the definitions we have gathered. We can focus on the non religious aspect of it being the allure itself, and have it be implied by other bigger tags. We could also focus on the more religiously invoked aspect that will be probably harder to truly define or agree with. Or we could have it apply to both like the above, and just let it be a broad tag with other tags underneath to narrow its focus like it has already begun doing with the feral/pedo/incest temptation tags.

EDIT: Another compromise: there is currently both the temptation tag (which we are discussing right now) and the tempting tagwhich is seperate for some reason with no definition. Do you think there should be a distinction between the act of tempting someone and a temptation itself, with seperate more nuanced defintions? or should they again be one and the same?

Since I was invited into discussion, I'll go ahead and add that as an artist, we lean on reaching a target audience and through extension a hypothetical offer audience participation. Pin-ups in particular lend themselves to using a combination of in-text dialogue and meta-textual implication of an invitation.

post #3815022 post #3957539 post #5834231

The interesting question to me is not tag hygene on subtype; nor is it the self-evident redundancy of "tempting / temptation"; but rather I think the context of Implicit and Explicit invitation suggests a context is provided within the text. If you're going to practice the extremes of Tag What You See, there is a clear decision to frame the viewer as possessing hypothetical action potential, and I think that's basically Temptation.

Critically, the negative subtext of Temptation implies that the exchange is harmful, and this is simply not the only context of temptation; hence the validity of subtypology (beast, pedo, etc). I do think that those of us who draw this junk lean into a form of communicative intent, and it shouldn't take a panel of peers and an IRB to establish inter-rater reliability with the definition suggested so far.

Sounds like a tough one to keep people consistent on, but I think the key is leaning into the delineation of it and tags like Seductive, Presenting, and Inviting. I think those three tags cover a lot of ground, so the question is: What is the concept that temptation covers which those tags do not?

I think if there is a solo subject, trying to "tempt" the viewer, I think those other tags would actually sufficiently cover the subject matter.

In my mind I don't think we actually SEE "Temptation" in a solo picture. The VIEWER is not a singular entity in the image, but a subjective one, and we can only imagine them experiencing temptation or not.

I think we should define Temptation as something we see that a character is experiencing.

Think of it this way: the unseen viewer could just as well be disgusted by the seduction, presentation, or invitation of the subject. We don't see it either way.

I think the most useful place for a tag like "Temptation" is where we SEE a character being tempted by the seduction, invitation, presentation, of another character; whether they are trying to resist that temptation or not. Even just a cutaway reaction shot of the other character experiencing the temptation I think would be sufficient.

Otherwise if we imagine that the unseen viewer can be tempted, I think temptation just becomes a synonym/alias with seductive.
If the character is doing anything at all that could tempt the subjective viewer, and we think that counts as temptation, it could devolve to that any arbitrary sexual image could be imagined as Temptation to a viewer, which is not useful at all.

I wish you genuine luck reaching a consensus and tag hygiene on this one though!

On second thought: I think a good alternative for "Temptation" would be "Persuasion", and I think this covers the idea you are trying to tag a lot better. The character is not just doing something that might be tempting, but actively trying to persuade a character (or even the viewer) into doing something they might not otherwise. There's still room for interpretation but I personally like it a lot more.

zoop said:
Sounds like a tough one to keep people consistent on, but I think the key is leaning into the delineation of it and tags like Seductive, Presenting, and Inviting. I think those three tags cover a lot of ground, so the question is: What is the concept that temptation covers which those tags do not?

I think if there is a solo subject, trying to "tempt" the viewer, I think those other tags would actually sufficiently cover the subject matter.

In my mind I don't think we actually SEE "Temptation" in a solo picture. The VIEWER is not a singular entity in the image, but a subjective one, and we can only imagine them experiencing temptation or not.

I think we should define Temptation as something we see that a character is experiencing.

Think of it this way: the unseen viewer could just as well be disgusted by the seduction, presentation, or invitation of the subject. We don't see it either way.

I think the most useful place for a tag like "Temptation" is where we SEE a character being tempted by the seduction, invitation, presentation, of another character; whether they are trying to resist that temptation or not. Even just a cutaway reaction shot of the other character experiencing the temptation I think would be sufficient.

Otherwise if we imagine that the unseen viewer can be tempted, I think temptation just becomes a synonym/alias with seductive.
If the character is doing anything at all that could tempt the subjective viewer, and we think that counts as temptation, it could devolve to that any arbitrary sexual image could be imagined as Temptation to a viewer, which is not useful at all.

I wish you genuine luck reaching a consensus and tag hygiene on this one though!

On second thought: I think a good alternative for "Temptation" would be "Persuasion", and I think this covers the idea you are trying to tag a lot better. The character is not just doing something that might be tempting, but actively trying to persuade a character (or even the viewer) into doing something they might not otherwise. There's still room for interpretation but I personally like it a lot more.

Thanks for the reply! Its kind of funny reading my original post than slowly realizing what I got myself into as I got more definitions, but yeah I think its kind of is a tricky lil beast. let me see if I can break things down.

Sounds like a tough one to keep people consistent on, but I think the key is leaning into the delineation of it and tags like Seductive, Presenting, and Inviting. I think those three tags cover a lot of ground, so the question is: What is the concept that temptation covers which those tags do not?

I think one of the main things is that while I think that temptations can cross over with inviting, presenting, and seductive, temptations can also apply to a picture even if no other character is. earlier I listed examples of food temptations, shown here post #5069459 post #2559062 post #5703541, All of which don't even need a sexual situation to apply. There is also situations like post #5589444 post #1596554 post #1598213 that are clearly sexual, but needed no other characters to do so. I cant imagine tagging seductive or inviting to an inanimate object, but it would also be just as silly to only to apply it in those situations either.

Lets get a bit more complex. post #5422944 post #5424265 Here are two images from an ongoing comic, where one character is trying to fight the temptation of being turned on by his sisters in the next room over. notice how inviting, seductive, or presenting are all (currently) absent from the page? This would fit temptation where others do not. We could also easily imagine that a person having an incestuous_fantasy could also be considered succumbing to a temptation in many cases. These and other temptations will often, but not always crossover with others.

Think of it this way: the unseen viewer could just as well be disgusted by the seduction, presentation, or invitation of the subject. We don't see it either way.

I think the most useful place for a tag like "Temptation" is where we SEE a character being tempted by the seduction, invitation, presentation, of another character; whether they are trying to resist that temptation or not. Even just a cutaway reaction shot of the other character experiencing the temptation I think would be sufficient.

Otherwise if we imagine that the unseen viewer can be tempted, I think temptation just becomes a synonym/alias with seductive.
If the character is doing anything at all that could tempt the subjective viewer, and we think that counts as temptation, it could devolve to that any arbitrary sexual image could be imagined as Temptation to a viewer, which is not useful at all

For reasons I mentioned above, I don't think it would be correct to only define it as one character reaction to another. I aslo want to point out that there are many images (especially with pokemon) where the mon itself is actively trying to get them to mate, even if it may be considered taboo, as we can see in feral_temptation tags. Also, I dont know why the stigma of not having the viewer be allowed to be tempted exists when we also have tags like seducing_viewer and the combination of seductive talking_to_viewer brings up 71 pages of posts, so unless we want to do a huge clean up of that while we're at it, we should also toss that logic aside

On second thought: I think a good alternative for "Temptation" would be "Persuasion", and I think this covers the idea you are trying to tag a lot better. The character is not just doing something that might be tempting, but actively trying to persuade a character (or even the viewer) into doing something they might not otherwise. There's still room for interpretation but I personally like it a lot more.

The definition for "tempt" does indeed have "persuade" as one of synonyms, but considering temptation can come from non living sources in examples listed earlier, or fantasies, I dont think that will work out. Tempation, has a very intimate relationship with sexuality, but is not restricted to it, is of my current argument after these last few days. One can be tempted to steal, tempted to du violence, tempted to into sex, tempted into doing exhibitionism, tempted to do a lot of things. We already have three sub tags for temptation, I just think its worth looking into expanding these subtags to more narrow ones if its needed, which is likely.