Implicating anatomically_correct_anus → anatomically_correct
Link to implication

Reason:

https://e621.net/forum/show/100169

Given the discussion that spawned this quote,

Rainbow_Dash said:
So if we just used penis, vagina, anus, then added anatomically_correct and the three species anatomically correct tags, that would suffice? hmmmm, I'm trying to think if there would be any problems with this

this tag should be aliased.

Right but is there really any way an anus could be not anatomically correct?

Rainbow_Dash said:
Right but is there really any way an anus could be not anatomically correct?

Actually, yes. Anatomically correct requires it to be true to life, literally- It's another way to describe physiological accuracy. This is why hyper cannot be physiologically accurate, regardless of if we look at Doug Winger's art or not; However, in the same breath a macro character that has its body parts in proportion to its size would be able to be called anatomically correct proportionally, though not completely truly because an organism of that size would require physics and materials that don't exist to support their weight properly without collapsing in on themselves (in short, the reason why giant mecha can never work. Stupid structural collapsing issues).

123easy said:
Actually, yes. Anatomically correct requires it to be true to life, literally- It's another way to describe physiological accuracy. This is why hyper cannot be physiologically accurate, regardless of if we look at Doug Winger's art or not; However, in the same breath a macro character that has its body parts in proportion to its size would be able to be called anatomically correct proportionally, though not completely truly because an organism of that size would require physics and materials that don't exist to support their weight properly without collapsing in on themselves (in short, the reason why giant mecha can never work. Stupid structural collapsing issues).

But I mean how does one make an anus not longer proportiona- actually wait...I don't want to know

oh god why

it's like a doughnut

Back to the main discussion then, what do we want to do?

Last I remember, it was to use penis, vagina, anus then anatomically_correct, and have your three main species groups of bits (horsecock, feline_penis, canine_penis, apologies if these aren't the exact terms) all of which implicate anatomically_correct (maybe?)

Or have these implications go through and be tagged in addition to penis, vagina, anus, anatomically_correct, etc (etc being anatomically correct_vagina, anus, penis)

Either way I don't see much an impact negatively, except it might get a bit redundant to have all of them on there

Rainbow_Dash said:
Last I remember, it was to use penis, vagina, anus then anatomically_correct, and have your three main species groups of bits (horsecock, feline_penis, canine_penis, apologies if these aren't the exact terms) all of which implicate anatomically_correct (maybe?)

I still think that animal_genitalia would be a better base tag for those, instead of anatomically_correct. Since it doesn't imply hundred percent anatomical correctness and would likely lead to less arguments.

...but I suppose this tag couldn't be implicated to it. Then again, are we certain that we need this? There's only thirteen images, and they all could be tagged as puffy_anus instead.

Did someone say doughnut anus? post #426689

I agree with Genjar, this particular tag probably isn't needed, and animal_genitalia is probably more descriptive for the others.

Genjar said:
I still think that animal_genitalia would be a better base tag for those, instead of anatomically_correct. Since it doesn't imply hundred percent anatomical correctness and would likely lead to less arguments.

...but I suppose this tag couldn't be implicated to it. Then again, are we certain that we need this? There's only thirteen images, and they all could be tagged as puffy_anus instead.

I'm more speaking all three as a set, not just doughnut anus

which situation is more favorable?

Also do you think animal_genitalia is better for anatomically_correct? What if the post is human? Do we assume every human post is anatomically_correct?

Rainbow_Dash said:
I'm more speaking all three as a set, not just doughnut anus

which situation is more favorable?

Also do you think animal_genitalia is better for anatomically_correct? What if the post is human? Do we assume every human post is anatomically_correct?

Human, Doug Winger. again, most definitely not anatomically correct. ;P

I think anatomically correct is fine as is. if an image is tagged horsecock, and also animal genitalia, I'd just go "no shit sherlock" reading it. Comparatively, if it's anatomically correct (assuming the first is as well) and tagged as such, seeing anatomically_correct and horsecock would lead me to assume that the horsecock is anatomically correct.

We CAN always restrict usage of anatomically_correct to genitalia only, either just by default or by adding "_genitalia" at the end of the tag.

Would much rather keep the kind of animalistic genitals separate from whether it's anatomically correct or not, and whether it's male or female, in general, though.

123easy said:
We CAN always restrict usage of anatomically_correct to genitalia only, either just by default or by adding "_genitalia" at the end of the tag.

Would much rather keep the kind of animalistic genitals separate from whether it's anatomically correct or not, and whether it's male or female, in general, though.

Whoops, I just posted something pretty directly responding to this in forum #100663

Alright we don't need three of these forums going at once; let's all just talk about it in forum #100663