As defined by the doggystyle wiki.
Has this been discussed before?

post #726518, post #744276, post #710121 and others depict doggystyle sex without an all_fours position.

Not all sex from behind is doggystyle. If it's not on all fours then by definition it's not doggystyle, it's just sex from behind.

Agree with evazion. Because of this, I suppose someone would have to go in and re-evaluate the doggystyle-tagged images.

evazion said:
Not all sex from behind is doggystyle. If it's not on all fours then by definition it's not doggystyle, it's just sex from behind.

Disagree. At the very least, top-down_bottom-up (which is different from all_fours) should definitely qualify as doggystyle. Whether or not bent_over or against_wall should qualify is a matter of debate. But if it's decided that they don't, then we'd need a new sexual position tag, since we don't have any other tag than doggystyle to describe sex from behind. In fact, the wiki for from_behind, which means something completely non-sexual, specifically says not to confuse it with doggystyle. Splitting the tag doesn't seem worth the confusion to me.

All_fours can't be aliased as doggystyle because all_fours doesn't really have to involve sex. It can just as easily depict a character that are on all_fours.

Coconut said:
Disagree. At the very least, top-down_bottom-up (which is different from all_fours) should definitely qualify as doggystyle.

I wouldn't consider top-down bottom-up to be a different position entirely. It's just a subset of all fours in my view.

Whether or not bent_over or against_wall should qualify is a matter of debate.

Sex on all fours and sex bent over while standing up are two different positions. The latter shouldn't qualify as doggystyle.

But if it's decided that they don't, then we'd need a new sexual position tag, since we don't have any other tag than doggystyle to describe sex from behind. In fact, the wiki for from_behind, which means something completely non-sexual, specifically says not to confuse it with doggystyle.

From behind used to be the tag for the sexual position until it was redefined to mean only a view from behind. Unfortunately a tag for the sex position was never created and a lot of older sex from_behind posts were never cleaned up to reflect the newer meaning.

(removed because I failed to read the implication/alias distinction somehow)

Yavie said:
All_fours can't be aliased as doggystyle because all_fours doesn't really have to involve sex. It can just as easily depict a character that are on all_fours.

Implication != Alias

Also, you got it the wrong way around.

I can think of a couple other cases that would (should?) be considered doggystyle without being all fours. What about when the receptive partner is bound with their arms behind back like in post #225161? This would normally result in a collapse into top-down bottom-up, but they could also be held up by having their arms (or hair - eek) pulled back by the other partner, or some other kind of support.

So it looks like the discussion is between broader and narrower definitions of doggy_style.

If we have tags that already convey the other positions of having sex from behind then I think it's reasonable to restrict doggy_style to all_fours. If we don't, then we could loosen it up.