/posts/3774904

female_fertilization...means two ovums rubbing up against each other. That's just incorrect (there is no "fertilization" happening in that case), but it's whatever...I understand that it needs some sort of name.

My real issue is these same images are also being tagged with "impregnation". Like...two ovums cannot impregnate each other, no more than two sperm cells can. Doesn't make sense at all. I think "impregnation" should be removed from ALL those images and the wiki should be updated to reflect that the "impregnation" tag should not be added to such images.

Same with the "fertilization" tag...it's not actual fertilization.

It's impregnation because they're getting pregnant. It doesn't have to be scientific or realistic.

If you like fertilization / impregnation but dislike female fertilization, just blacklist it and ignore it

fossilnix said:
It's impregnation because they're getting pregnant. It doesn't have to be scientific or realistic.

I mean...tags have to have some concrete meaning. You're basically saying that "impregnation" doesn't mean actual impregnation anymore...all you need is 2 sex cells rubbing together and BOOM it counts. So are you also saying that two sperm cells rubbing together would qualify as "impregnation"? Because using your own logic...it would. Fuck any and all science and reality.

fossilnix said:
If you like fertilization / impregnation but dislike female fertilization, just blacklist it and ignore it

So basically "be inconvenienced by this incredibly niche fetish because I feel like a tag that has zero basis in reality should exist because no reason it doesn't have to make sense." Great argument. I think the handful of people with this incredibly niche interest shouldn't warp tagging to fit their stupid fetish.

Plus it doesn't jive at all with the current wiki entry for "impregnation": /wiki_pages/impregnation.html

It specifically mentions a sperm and egg cell. Nothing about 2 ovums rubbing up on one another.

Just FYI, arguing like the other person is retarded will get you nowhere.

In any case, that tag describes a specific concept. "Fertilization" in hentai is the stereotypical image of the sperm penetrating the ovum. As those are two females, it's intuitive to call the picture "female fertilization".
It's obvious from the picture that the context being given is that impregnation is taking place. Even the commentary says so.

That the wiki page doesn't mention it is simply because the writer of that page didn't think of the female fertilization tag. I'll amend the wiki to add a reference to that too.

Your complaint seems to me akin to trying to remove pregnant from pregnant ips_cells just because females can't impregnate other females IRL. What's shown in the picture takes precedence over what would happen IRL.

I don't have a problem with keeping fertilization and female_fertilization strictly separated except in the unlikely circumstance that both sperm-ovum and ovum-ovum combinations are appearing in the same image. Both tags are similar in concept but they're visually distinct from one another. Using both tags for the same thing seems like just another way to raise tag counts.

As for separating female_fertilization from impregnation: why? Tags exist to objectively describe what is depicted in an image, not editorialize about its biological plausibility. If it's apparent that the artist meant to show a character being impregnated — which is quite obviously the case with these images — then the impregnation tag belongs there whether it makes sense to you or not. Don't like it? Too bad; that's why you're able to add female_fertilization impregnation to your blacklist.

Dyrone said:

I think the handful of people with this incredibly niche interest shouldn't warp tagging to fit their stupid fetish.

On the other hand, a niche tag that makes up less than 0.5% of impregnation does not "warp tagging". Quit acting like the sky is falling just because you're triggered by this. These posts will barely affect anyone who isn't actively looking for them, and the majority of them are deleted anyway.

Plus it doesn't jive at all with the current wiki entry for "impregnation": /wiki_pages/impregnation.html

The wiki definition of impregnation is clearly out of date. There are hundreds of posts with this tag and no visible sperm cells, and forum #155736 mentioned other scenarios where someone is being impregnated even when fertilization can't be seen.

Dyrone said:

So basically "be inconvenienced by this incredibly niche fetish because I feel like a tag that has zero basis in reality should exist because no reason it doesn't have to make sense." Great argument. I think the handful of people with this incredibly niche interest shouldn't warp tagging to fit their stupid fetish.

So basically "I don't like this tag or the concept of it so it should be removed or renamed based solely my own opinion of how stupid it is because it defies reality." Great argument.

But speaking seriously, no one is "warping tagging", the fetish needs some kind of tag, I guess it could be changed to something like "ovum_rubbing" or whatever, but the current one exactly describes the intended concept of the fetish. Whether or not it has any basis in reality is irrelevant.

I don't know how taking five seconds to add a tag to your blacklist is an inconvenience, it wouldn't stop you from seeing impregnation and fertilization posts, just specifically female_fertilization posts. I think you're proposing more of an inconvenience for people than the current situation.

It's called "coexistence," you don't have to like what other people are doing, but if it's not actually hurting you or anyone else, then you can just leave them to their devices and their fetishes.

blindVigil said:
So basically "I don't like this tag or the concept of it so it should be removed or renamed based solely my own opinion of how stupid it is because it defies reality." Great argument.

Ummm...that is a great argument. It defies reality and the stated definition of the tag on the wiki page. What more do you need exactly? Should I start tagging all femboy posts as female? Because that's my fetish to imagine they are trans girls in the middle of a transition? Would that be incorrect or nah?

blindVigil said:
But speaking seriously, no one is "warping tagging", the fetish needs some kind of tag

Yeah, no shit...it already has one: "female_fertilizaion" and I ALREADY SAID I don't have an issue with that in my FIRST POST. Did you even read that before you rushed to respond?

blindVigil said:
Whether or not it has any basis in reality is irrelevant.

Again, NO SHIT, my problem is when that unrealistic tag starts infecting other tags and essentially changing their meanings. just because you have a singular tag that describes an impossible act because it needs some sort of tag doesn't mean we need to suddenly start changing the meanings of ALL the tags around it to fit its fantastical logic.

blindVigil said:
It's called "coexistence," you don't have to like what other people are doing, but if it's not actually hurting you or anyone else, then you can just leave them to their devices and their fetishes.

So allow tags to be corrupted cuz "coexistence"...that's...really stupid.

------------------------------------------------

iridescent_slime said:
I don't have a problem with keeping fertilization and female_fertilization strictly separated except in the unlikely circumstance that both sperm-ovum and ovum-ovum combinations are appearing in the same image.

Both "fertilization" and "impregnation" should be removed from those posts. Neither make sense.

iridescent_slime said:
As for separating female_fertilization from impregnation: why? Tags exist to objectively describe what is depicted in an image, not editorialize about its biological plausibility. If it's apparent that the artist meant to show a character being impregnated — which is quite obviously the case with these images

Wait...how is that obviously the case? Two ovums are rubbing together in an impossible manner to begin with...then what happens? Impregnation usually involves one sex cell (the sperm) ENETERING the egg to form a zygote. Are either of theses ovums depicited as entering each other? If so what happens then? Do they form a single Zygote and travel back up into one of the girls making one of them pregnant? Or do they *magically* create two zygotes impregnating both women? There are SO MANY QUESTIONS it is NOT AT ALL obvious what the hell is happening in these images.

iridescent_slime said:
On the other hand, a niche tag that makes up less than 0.5% of impregnation does not "warp tagging". Quit acting like the sky is falling just because you're triggered by this. These posts will barely affect anyone who isn't actively looking for them, and the majority of them are deleted anyway.

Great so we've established it's such a tiny part of the market who cares (your argument not mine) so you won't mind if I remove the "fertilization" and "impregnation" tags from those images. Cool.

iridescent_slime said:
The wiki definition of impregnation is clearly out of date. There are hundreds of posts with this tag and no visible sperm cells, and forum #155736 mentioned other scenarios where someone is being impregnated even when fertilization can't be seen.

Talking about a possible impregnation should not be tagged with "impregnation"...it's not the same thing. If I draw a yaoi image with some guy getting an anal creampie and saying "oh no, I might get pregnant!!!one11!!" is that "impregnation"? No (although I demand you "coexist" with my male pregnancy fetish, so in that case it is). Secondly, cumming in a uterus is ALSO not impregnation. Females have a certain time of the month they can get pregnant...simply cumming inside their uterus is not a guarantee they will get pregnant because they might not be ovulating. You're just citing more examples of the tag getting corrupted and being like "well...it's already corrupted...who the fuck cares if it we stretch the meaning even further?"

Alright so, let me just put it in clear words:

It's a fantasy. Nothing makes sense.

You are applying real-world science to a fantasy. It doesn't work like that.
In that picture there clearly is a process of fertilization. Does it make sense? No.
Do people get turned on by that? Yeah sure, some do, i'm not one to judge.

This site has even weirder tags. It's not worth your time to get angry at us because someone decided to make ovums assume the sperm cell's role. We're just cataloguing things as appropriate.

Mysterious_Uploader said:

Alright so, let me just put it in clear words:

It's a fantasy. Nothing makes sense.

You are applying real-world science to a fantasy. It doesn't work like that.
In that picture there clearly is a process of fertilization. Does it make sense? No.
Do people get turned on by that? Yeah sure, some do, i'm not one to judge.

This site has even weirder tags. It's not worth your time to get angry at us because someone decided to make ovums assume the sperm cell's role. We're just cataloguing things as appropriate.

Let me be super-clear: it's a fantasy...I'm fine with that...I've said that before...so enough with this "lul it's a fantasy" bullshit. Secondly...it has its own tag...it DOES NOT need to corrupt the meaning of other tags that ARE based in reality. Getting pregnant is a real thing with real mechanics. People who are fans of such a thing want to see THAT THING...not something else entirely. That is the entire reason tags have a wiki and concrete meanings.

Dyrone said:
Great so we've established it's such a tiny part of the market who cares (your argument not mine) so you won't mind if I remove the "fertilization" and "impregnation" tags from those images. Cool.

No, that would be vandalism and could get you banned, you wait until the discussion is over until you make any changes.

Unbreakable said:

No, that would be vandalism and could get you banned, you wait until the discussion is over until you make any changes.

How is it tag vandalism if the tags are not correct in the first place? I say it's tag poisoning/corruption that they exist on those images to begin with. If the discussion isn't over then it's not tag vandalism because we don't know whether or not the tags should be there. They can be re-added just as easily as I removed them.

And what exactly signals the "end of a discussion"? Is some admin going to come in here and pass judgement, or do I need to literally convince each and every naysayer in this thread? Seems like if that is the case they could argue forever and effectually keep the status quo they desire by never allowing the argument to end.

Dyrone said:

How is it tag vandalism if the tags are not correct in the first place? I say it's tag poisoning/corruption that they exist on those images to begin with. If the discussion isn't over then it's not tag vandalism because we don't know whether or not the tags should be there.

And what exactly signals the "end of a discussion"? Is some admin going to come in here and pass judgement, or do I need to literally convince each and every naysayer in this thread? Seems like if that is the case they could argue forever and effectually keep the status quo they desire by never allowing the argument to end.

It's not up to you to decide whether or not a tag is used the wrong way.

Lacrimosa said:
It's not up to you to decide whether or not a tag is used the wrong way.

Wait...so the uploader of these images can corrupt tags and use them in an incorrect way...that's fine...but if I try to correct them I'm suddenly in the wrong? Cool.

So...if I see a tag being used incorrectly I'm NEVER allowed to remove it myself? I need to go "get an adult" so to speak?

Dyrone said:

Wait...so these uploader of these images can corrupt tags and use them in an incorrect way...that's fine...but if I try to correct them I'm suddenly in the wrong? Cool.

You are if you try to do something by yourself and the majority decides that you are wrong. It might have gone a different way if you had brought arguments to this thread instead of snide remarks.

nonamethanks said:

You are if you try to do something by yourself and the majority decides that you are wrong. It might have gone a different way if you had brought arguments to this thread instead of snide remarks.

Logical fallacy: appealing to popularity. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Again...if someone with some actual authority decides theses tags need to be on those images...they can be added back easily. Stop acting like I've destroyed a fucking ming vase you chodes.

"Oh my god the precious "impregnation" and "fertilization" tags...DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE? YOU HAVE UNLOCKED THE FINAL SEAL. THE WORLD WILL NOW END." -everyone in this thread accusing me of "tag vandalism"

Dyrone said:

if someone with some actual authority decides theses tags need to be on those images...they can be added back easily.

Unless an admin decides otherwise on a specific topic, the majority is the authority here, and it seems you're the only one with a different opinion on this specific topic.

nonamethanks said:
Unless an admin decides otherwise on a specific topic, the majority is the authority here, and it seems you're the only one with a different opinion on this specific topic.

Cool...is that a rule written down somewhere or did you just pull that out of your ass?

Dyrone said:

Logical fallacy: appealing to popularity. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Again...if someone with some actual authority decides theses tags need to be on those images...they can be added back easily. Stop acting like I've destroyed a fucking ming vase you chodes.

"Oh my god the precious "impregnation" and "fertilization" tags...DO YOU REALIZE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE? YOU HAVE UNLOCKED THE FINAL SEAL. THE WORLD WILL NOW END." -everyone in this thread accusing me of "tag vandalism"

Dyrone said:
Cool...is that a rule written down somewhere or did you just pull that out of your ass?

They were not accusing you of tag vandalism. You were just warned not to change the tag, just because you think it´s used wrong.
And, just for you to know: Unbreakable, Lacrimosa and nonamethanks are Builders. They know what they talk about, while all you do is being offended, that some people don´t agree with you.
I would recommend, that you watch your language while arguing with other users on here. Being unfriendly won´t help your case.

Guaro1238 said:
They were not accusing you of tag vandalism. You were just warned not to change the tag, just because you think it´s used wrong
And, just for you to know: Unbreakable, Lacrimosa and nonamethanks are Builders. They know what they talk about, while all you do is being offended, that some people don´t agree with you.
I would recommend, that you watch your language while arguing with other users on here. Being unfriendly won´t help your case.

Warned? What authority does a "builder" have to warn me? Do they have the final say on tagging matters? If so they should just say "well we have the final say...end of story" and make things a lot simpler here.

I'm just a user trying to do what I think is right...if someone with some real authority wants to tell me to stop I will, until then we're all on the same playing field here.

nonamethanks said:

You are if you try to do something by yourself and the majority decides that you are wrong. It might have gone a different way if you had brought arguments to this thread instead of snide remarks.

Snide remarks? What exactly triggered you snowflakes? The "stupid" in the title? If I say rape is "stupid" will a bunch of you rush to defend it? Jesus.

Being snide/mean should not matter...only the argument should matter. Anyone who cares about that stuff is a child who is ultimately willing to damage the integrity of the site and the tagging system only for the sake of chiding a singular user. All of you "builders" should lose your positions if you let your judgement be clouded so easily.

"oh no, he was slightly mean...I guess lets just upend the entire tagging system...nothing means anything anymore. That'll show him." Pathetic.