tag:danbooru.me,2005:/forum_topics/4829 Tag implication: doggystyle -> all_fours 2010-09-15T17:32:27-04:00 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/48053 2010-09-15T17:32:27-04:00 2010-09-15T17:32:27-04:00 @jxh2154: So it looks like the discussion is between... <p>So it looks like the discussion is between broader and narrower definitions of doggy_style.</p><p>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.</p> jxh2154 /users/1309 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47966 2010-09-14T09:42:49-04:00 2010-09-14T09:42:49-04:00 @CountPacula: I can think of a couple other cases that would... <p>I can think of a couple other cases that would (should?) be considered <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/doggystyle">doggystyle</a> without being <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/all_fours">all fours</a>. What about when the receptive partner is bound with their <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/arms_behind_back">arms behind back</a> like in <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/225161">post #225161</a>? This would normally result in a collapse into <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/top-down_bottom-up">top-down bottom-up</a>, 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.</p> CountPacula /users/93966 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47957 2010-09-14T01:05:22-04:00 2010-09-14T01:05:41-04:00 @theadonicus: > Yavie said: > All_fours can't be aliased as... <blockquote><p>Yavie said:<br>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.</p></blockquote><p>Implication != Alias</p><p>Also, you got it the wrong way around.</p> theadonicus /users/117798 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47942 2010-09-13T16:19:14-04:00 2010-09-14T02:21:53-04:00 @sgcdonmai: (removed because I failed to read the... <p>(removed because I failed to read the implication/alias distinction somehow)</p> sgcdonmai /users/21085 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47907 2010-09-12T15:00:39-04:00 2010-09-12T15:00:39-04:00 @evazion: > Coconut said: > Disagree. At the very least,... <blockquote><p>Coconut said:<br>Disagree. At the very least, <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=top-down_bottom-up">top-down_bottom-up</a> (which is different from <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=all_fours">all_fours</a>) should definitely qualify as <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=doggystyle">doggystyle</a>.</p></blockquote><p>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.</p><blockquote><p>Whether or not bent_over or against_wall should qualify is a matter of debate.</p></blockquote><p>Sex on all fours and sex bent over while standing up are two different positions. The latter shouldn't qualify as doggystyle.</p><blockquote><p>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 <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/from_behind">from_behind</a>, which means something completely non-sexual, specifically says not to confuse it with doggystyle.</p></blockquote><p><a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/from_behind">From behind</a> 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 <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=sex%20from_behind">sex from_behind</a> posts were never cleaned up to reflect the newer meaning.</p> evazion /users/52664 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47896 2010-09-12T11:23:18-04:00 2010-09-12T11:23:18-04:00 @Yavie: All_fours can't be aliased as doggystyle... <p>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.</p> Yavie /users/102514 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47884 2010-09-12T06:54:31-04:00 2010-09-12T06:54:31-04:00 @Coconut: > evazion said: > Not all sex from behind is... <blockquote><p>evazion said:<br>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.</p></blockquote><p>Disagree. At the very least, <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=top-down_bottom-up">top-down_bottom-up</a> (which is different from <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=all_fours">all_fours</a>) should definitely qualify as <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=doggystyle">doggystyle</a>. Whether or not <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=bent_over">bent_over</a> or <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=against_wall">against_wall</a> 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 <a class="dtext-link dtext-post-search-link" href="/posts?tags=doggystyle">doggystyle</a> to describe sex from behind. In fact, the wiki for <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/from_behind">from_behind</a>, which means something completely non-sexual, specifically says not to confuse it with <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/doggystyle">doggystyle</a>. Splitting the tag doesn't seem worth the confusion to me.</p> Coconut /users/106261 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47866 2010-09-11T22:57:15-04:00 2010-09-11T22:57:15-04:00 @hungkok2007: Agree with evazion. Because of this, I suppose... <p>Agree with evazion. Because of this, I suppose someone would have to go in and re-evaluate the doggystyle-tagged images.</p> hungkok2007 /users/95625 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47851 2010-09-11T12:40:36-04:00 2010-09-11T12:40:36-04:00 @evazion: Not all sex from behind is doggystyle. If it's... <p>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.</p> evazion /users/52664 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47849 2010-09-11T11:17:38-04:00 2010-09-11T11:17:38-04:00 @jjj14: post #726518, post #744276, post #710121 and... <p><a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/726518">post #726518</a>, <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/744276">post #744276</a>, <a class="dtext-link dtext-id-link dtext-post-id-link" href="/posts/710121">post #710121</a> and others depict <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/doggystyle">doggystyle</a> sex without an <a class="dtext-link dtext-wiki-link tag-type-0" href="/wiki_pages/all_fours">all_fours</a> position.</p> jjj14 /users/106784 tag:danbooru.me,2005:ForumPost/47848 2010-09-11T10:55:35-04:00 2010-09-15T17:32:27-04:00 @Stealthjet: As defined by the doggystyle wiki. Has this... <p>As defined by the doggystyle wiki.<br>Has this been discussed before?</p> Stealthjet /users/203363