I'm suggesting we change the current sexual orientation tags gay/lesbian/straight to male_on_male/female_on_female/male_on_female respectively.

Reasons
To prevent further confusion that we're tagging sexual orientation.
This would bring the tag in line with other currently used tags for similar situations of different gender mixes, i.e. herm_on_male, dickgirl_on_female etc.

This sounds crazy, but I'm actually really liking this idea.

Saffron said:
This sounds crazy, but I'm actually really liking this idea.

Same

It's just more in line with the actual use/meaning of the tag(s) on this site.
I've seen sooooooo many people complaining that they either can't tag their gay character as gay because it's a solo image, or that their straight character is tagged as gay because of the image context.

This was the best solution I could think of.

I take it this is a response to just about everyone's confusion with "Dickgirl_on_girl =...??? Is it lesbian or straight?" situations right? I kind of have to agree, getting rid of orientation and making the Gender_on_gender tags sounds like a good idea.

Jade_Angel said:
I take it this is a response to just about everyone's confusion with "Dickgirl_on_girl =...??? Is it lesbian or straight?" situations right? I kind of have to agree, getting rid of orientation and making the Gender_on_gender tags sounds like a good idea.

Partly, but tbh there's regular confusion and arguments about what exactly the gay, straight, and lesbian tags are for.
A lot of people think we're labeling the orientation of the characters.

I honestly can't find anything wrong with these aliases, except that they are longer to tag but I don't think anyone would mind

TheHuskyK9 said:
I honestly can't find anything wrong with these aliases, except that they are longer to tag but I don't think anyone would mind

Nope, because of the alias, you can still tag it "gay" and it will auto-correct to "male_on_male".
So, not even any harder to tag really.

Halite said:
Nope, because of the alias, you can still tag it "gay" and it will auto-correct to "male_on_male".
So, not even any harder to tag really.

Forgot about that

I thought about it a bit more and this has my support. Male on male might not be gay for whatever reason somebody wants to argue, but it's always going to be male on male.

What do we tag images where there is no physical contact?

post #425618

Would images like that be tagged as male_on_male?

My only issue is what this does with the solo male images with cum in their butts that we tag gay. That is something that gay men (or people that like to see gay men) are generally going to want to see, but without another character actually in the scene, we can't exactly tag it male_on_male in that case.

Note I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed, but that this trouble case should be considered and we should decide on a fix for it before this goes through, because I very much like this idea.

ceti said:
What do we tag images where there is no physical contact?

post #425618

Would images like that be tagged as male_on_male?

That's another good fringe case that needs be addressed, where it's covered by 'gay' but not necessarily by 'male_on_male'.

Well, we have a "stated_homosexuality" tag already.
We could cover these situations with an "implied_homosexuality" tag.

Halite said:
Well, we have a "stated_homosexuality" tag already.
We could cover these situations with an "implied_homosexuality" tag.

That sounds sufficient to assuage my concern handily.

I kind of liked this suggestion, until I started thinking about that straight -> male_on_female alias.

"Why is this tagged as male_on_female, when it's clearly female_on_male?"

I see that question all the time for other similar tags, such as anthro_on_feral. :/

Genjar said:
I kind of liked this suggestion, until I started thinking about that straight -> male_on_female alias.

"Why is this tagged as male_on_female, when it's clearly female_on_male?"

I see that question all the time for other similar tags, such as anthro_on_feral. :/

I've made that complaint before, and the short answer is "don't think of it as X topping Y, but just the two interacting". Maybe a switch to "X_and_Y" instead would work, but that'd be a lot of work.

123easy said:
I've made that complaint before, and the short answer is "don't think of it as X topping Y, but just the two interacting". Maybe a switch to "X_and_Y" instead would work, but that'd be a lot of work.

Might be worth it. Because I've seen several users remove those "x_on_y" tags, simply because they thought those were mistagged. (Some thought that anthro_on_feral should only be tagged when the anthro is topping, etc.)

Edit: Then again, if it were anthro_and_feral instead, those would likely get tagged for any image that has anthro and feral on it. Even when they don't interact. Bah.

Genjar said:
Might be worth it. Because I've seen several users remove those "x_on_y" tags, simply because they thought those were mistagged. (Some thought that anthro_on_feral should only be tagged when the anthro is topping, etc.)

Edit: Then again, if it were anthro_and_feral instead, those would likely get tagged for any image that has anthro and feral on it. Even when they don't interact. Bah.

yeah.... Hmm. What about a separate "sex" tag catagory, like the Copyright and Artist sections?

123easy said:
My only issue is what this does with the solo male images with cum in their butts that we tag gay. That is something that gay men (or people that like to see gay men) are generally going to want to see, but without another character actually in the scene, we can't exactly tag it male_on_male in that case.

Search "solo male cum_in_ass". No problem. The purpose of the gay tag is to denote an interaction between more than one male character, those images aren't important to the tag.

And if X_on_Y implies contact, perhaps X_with_Y is less confusing. Male_with_female etc

Enkidu6 said:
Search "solo male cum_in_ass". No problem. The purpose of the gay tag is to denote an interaction between more than one male character, those images aren't important to the tag.

And if X_on_Y implies contact, perhaps X_with_Y is less confusing. Male_with_female etc

...Except gay is also used to denote images that are obviously involving a homosexual occurance, such as a male with cum in his ass. That cum didn't get generated by his ass on its own (Well, if he's an alien maybe, but by default...).

It's MEANT to imply contact. Thus the problem with X_and_Y for images where there is just an X and a Y in the image even if they aren't interacting.

I understand how this would be useful, but I think keeping gay and lesbian tags would still be better. Maybe we could work out an implication...like male_on_male->gay because male_on_male could also be bisexual if there is a three-way, but in that case, is it even gay.
Golden rule applies and what not.

Moon_Moon said:
Maybe we could work out an implication...like male_on_male->gay because male_on_male could also be bisexual if there is a three-way, but in that case, is it even gay.

Now that you mention it... I've always wondered about those.

It just always feels odd to tag something as straight, gay, and bisexual. Especially considering that if someone searches for straight, they're probably not looking for bisexual images with gay content.

I think the OP's suggestion would make that clearer: those would be tagged as bisexual, female_on_male, and male_on_male.

Yeah, I think continuing to ignore the 'who is on who' part of it and just use it to define X and Y getting it on is going to be best. We already use it that way, no need to really change it I guess.

Moon_Moon said:
I understand how this would be useful, but I think keeping gay and lesbian tags would still be better. Maybe we could work out an implication...like male_on_male->gay because male_on_male could also be bisexual if there is a three-way, but in that case, is it even gay.
Golden rule applies and what not.

I'm not sure how keeping gay and lesbian tags is better?
Can you explain that further for me?
I just see so many arguments caused by those tags, that I have difficulty seeing any positive in keeping them instead of a tag that more accurately describes the usage of the tags currently.