Wait, this is 119 pages so I obviously didn't go through all 119 of them.


But "Porn" is removed?

Then what about images where in-picture porn is removed? Like if the people within the image is looking at it? For example, imagine this image

cdn2.gelbooru.com//sample...7b25f2ecf31054.png?472390

With the POV set behind the girl showing what was on the screen?

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=472390

Use ^ to link to the image instead please.

@Zazabi: according to the tag's definition, i don't think your example image would not get the tag because there is no visible indication that she is looking at pornography...though I could be incorrect in my interpretation.

That's correct. If you can't directly see something in an image, you shouldn't tag it. Tags should never be placed based on conjecture.

[ p o s t ] 472390 [ / p o s t ]

post #472390

Maybe it's my fault, but I don't exactly understand the

gelbooru.com/index.php?pa...list&tags=mutual_yuri

mutual_yuri tag. Yes, I did checked Dan too this time, they have +1 sentence in the wiki. It looks like the tag covers girl couples who are eager to play with each other, not being shy or awkward. I know it's no point arguing here about a tag that comes from Dan, but seriously.

We (and presumably Dan) strive to use only tags which are not redundant, not subjective and have straightforward names, and yuri being "mutual" is like heterosexual or yaoi sex being mutual (we hate tagging majority defaults from a set, see my hair hanging freely idea, which was dismissed... kinda). We do tag sexual activities which AREN'T or might not be entirely mutual, like BDSM, bondage, femdom, rape. (/off Although I do know that real life BDSM itself have rules of informed consent and so-called "safe words" to stop any activity just in case. /on)

I could see the point of what the tag implies (and it's not really objective), but "mutual" is a poor choice of word for it imho... This way, there should be a tag for "eagerness" in yaoi and heterosexual posts. It's possible that there are tags for these, but I'm unaware of any. The closest what I can think of is happy_sex.

Note that I'm not arguing against the tag, I don't want to make it go from Gel. Rather, I'm just a bit puzzled why it is here (and there). Eagerness in yuri can be construed as being hotter than posts with girls who look shy and awkward, but then it's more like catering to individual tastes and fetishes, no? Since deciding things like "character A is surprised" is a subjective conjecture, telling that "character A looks surprised" might not (or might be, we're talking about exaggerately drawn people after all).

Slight tl;dr issue here, but on the other hand, you weren't wrong.

I dislike the tag. Yuri suffices for me. If it wasn't consentual yuri, it'd be "rape yuri". Or "happy_sex yuri" to contrast.

It can be difficult to shrug off tags Danbooru uses, unless a user here is willing to edit them out every time an image is ported over. That, or go to Danbooru and make the same case to them as you would here.

It could work, since Danbooru is technically against redundant tags as well.

I looked into it, and it does seem that Danbooru wants to do something about this as well. The main issue was that the tag "couple" is currently only applicable to heterosexual couples, which is pretty ridiculous. It was mentioned that "mutual_yuri", as well as "mutual_yaoi" which is technically a valid tag even though it doesn't seem to have ever made it over here, could be folded in. It seemed like the admin was fully in support of merging them together. You can see the Danbooru forum thread here: danbooru.donmai.us/forum/show/81959

The best thing we can do in this case would be to go into the thread and bring the issue back up. I'm sure with a few more voices, they'd be willing to do something about it.

love -- gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=list&tags=love

Danbooru doesn't use this tag because it's subjective. We have over 780 posts with this tag. Is this an instance where our tagging policy is different from Danbo?

For some reason I feel this may have been discussed before but was too long ago for me to remember.