Usage of implied_anal tag

A lot of the implied_x tags are sort of problematic, but implied anal absolutely takes the cake. It was initially made on post #1722582 (and others in that pool), for cases where you couldn't be sure if it was anal or not (e.g. could be double vaginal or no penetration).

At some point it was completely co-opted by yaoi posters, and now if you look through it the majority of the tag is either implied_sex + yaoi or people taking it to an absurdly over-literal level and tagging it on any post where you can't literally see the anus being penetrated. Just look at some of the shit people have been tagging it on:

• post #6249705
• post #6465824
• post #6390735
• post #6441676
• post #2206110
• post #2676753

I'm reluctant to say it should be completely nuked because it seems it could be useful, but in its current form it's basically worthless. My suggestion would be to exclude it from most yaoi posts (and I guess futa on male or pegging) since that just overlaps with implied_sex. Thoughts?

Alternatively we could get rid of it completely and stick with only implied_sex/etc and just tag anal as relevant.

Both implied anal and implied sex should just have the "can't visually confirm the penetration occurring" bit scrapped, the same as was done with implied futanari, and these tags should only be used when you genuinely can't confirm through visuals or context that sex is taking place. I don't know about implied anal, but implied sex has plenty posts of genuinely ambiguous sexual activity that you'll never find because the tag is flooded with posts where there's nothing "implied" about the fact characters are having sex, you just can't see the point of contact.

I do believe there is a legit use for this tag but yeah, it's quite polluted by tag literalists adding it to random yaoi and futa on male posts where you can't see the penetration happening but "since it's a guy it's >technikally implied anal"

I think it ought to be reserved for cases where...
Nah. Just alias it to implied sex. Or alias both into implied penetration if you're concerned that sex is too narrow.

baconmeh2 said:

Or alias both into implied penetration if you're concerned that sex is too narrow.

That sounds dangerously close to the old ambiguous penetration tag that was nuked for being too trash.

Unbreakable said:

That sounds dangerously close to the old ambiguous penetration tag that was nuked for being too trash.

People already seem to be using it that way (post #5563044).

baconmeh2 said:

I think it ought to be reserved for cases where...
Nah. Just alias it to implied sex. Or alias both into implied penetration if you're concerned that sex is too narrow.

I don't know if aliasing it is a good idea because a lot of the tag does not even qualify for implied sex because it's very blatant sex is happening. Things like post #3700322.

Talulah said:

People already seem to be using it that way (post #5563044).

To be fair, you don't actually know if she has a pussy or not, so I don't think the tag is entirely out of place. Frankly, that looks like a place where ambiguous penetration would have actually served a purpose.

I don't know if aliasing it is a good idea because a lot of the tag does not even qualify for implied sex because it's very blatant sex is happening. Things like post #3700322.

That's the thing, they do qualify for implied sex, because just like implied futanari before it was changed, it's wiki plainly states: "When sexual intercourse is taking place, but the genitalia are not visible or out of the frame." The tag is currently, essentially, just another ambiguous penetration waiting to be nuked, where its only real use is as a sort of more reliable sex -anal -vaginal -penis -pussy search because people constantly fail to tag obvious genitalia and other things far more relevant to the content than the hair color of the girl getting gangbanged.

Your comment perfectly exemplifies why this is a problem, the tag is unintuitive without reading the wiki, and the current way it's used makes it extremely difficult to find genuinely ambiguous sex. Both it and implied anal have the issue of focusing on whether or not you can visually identify the act is taking place, without considering whether or not the act is unambiguously taking place contextually and visual confirmation of "dick in ass/pussy" shouldn't be needed.

I think tagging that you can't see something is relevant, but trying to tag what you can't see makes no sense.

BUR #18783 has been rejected.

nuke implied_anal

Yes, this tag really sucks. Most results are posts like post #6557713 or post #6313885, where it's obviously anal, or posts like post #6515128, where just implied sex can suffice.

This BUR will require moving a bunch of posts from implied_anal -implied_sex to implied sex before it can be approved.

Can't you just alias it to implied sex at that point?

I wanted to say that I don't want people to bring horrible tagging practices to implied sex, but after seeing posts like post #6571690 or post #6549112 in that tag, I question what the fuck our users are doing with these tags.

BUR #18788 has been rejected.

create alias implied_anal -> implied_sex

Alternate BUR.

This seems more helpful to me when these cases should always be tagged implied sex.

Edit: Should have waited for the reply lol. Anyhow this is just another option to consider.

How about creating a sex out of frame kind of tag for these cases that are getting tagged implied sex, instead of out-of-frame censoring?

Perhaps users feel like the sex tag alone is not descriptive enough for these cases and that's why they're looking elsewhere for a more specific tag?
It would definitely be helpful to have a specific tag for these cases when someone misuses implied sex.

out-of-frame censoring is already the "sex out of frame" tag.

It's a much more general tag than that, but sure we could just alias it then if you're not big on making a new tag like that.

The bulk update request #18788 (forum #249468) has been rejected by @evazion.

Admiral_Pectoral said:

BUR #18788 has been rejected.

create alias implied_anal -> implied_sex

Alternate BUR.

This seems more helpful to me when these cases should always be tagged implied sex.

Edit: Should have waited for the reply lol. Anyhow this is just another option to consider.

In some cases implied anal is used for fingering or implied object insertion.

This seems like a slightly broken tag given that most angles won't explicitly portray the anus being penetrated. Similarly, many angles won't portray a vagina being penetrated so it'll just have to be assumed. In such cases, there's no explicit visual portraying the act so all that can be relied on is context which can only go so far as to imply the act, however it's often an obvious implication anyone would reasonable be able to conclude the act being performed. I'm not sure then if these images are entirely befitting of the tag, but they don't wholly disagree with the tag either. It does seem reasonable to restrict the tag to instances where it's not quite so obvious that sex/anal is actually taking place.

Perhaps the tag "implied_anal" should exclude explicit context clues and images wherein anal is a reasonable assumption based on context should instead be tagged with something like "presumptive_anal"

On the other end of the spectrum is the out-of-frame examples, that I would think should be tagged with some sort of "implied_out-of-frame_sex" tag, or simply "out-of-frame_sex" as suggested by Admiral Pectoral, since out-of-frame sex would necessarily have to be implied given it doesn't visually depict intercourse.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.