Donmai

Mistagged posts with the yuri tag

Posted under General

SSJG

Oniichanyan said:

the "yuri" wiki page says "romantic and\or sexual interactions between female characters" but the girls don't show any interest in each other(sorry for bad english)

Tribadism is a sexual interaction.

Reply
iridescent slime

c933103 said:

Like this? https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?utf8=✓&tags=pool%3A2138+yuri&ms=1

Take those search results with a grain of salt. There are quite a few posts in pool #2138 that don't meet that pool's standards of inclusion. For instance, post #1255338 and post #2638173 don't even hint at male involvement, and for that matter, neither does post #1112233 (tentacles are not a "character"). Also, group sex images like post #2305207 and post #2346407 can still technically count as yuri because there are all-female groups not interacting with the male character (see topic #5842, particularly the responses at forum #56549 and forum #57017).

Updated

Reply
741qwe852asd963zxc

iridescent_slime said:

Take those search results with a grain of salt. There are quite a few posts in pool #2138 that don't meet that pool's standards of inclusion. For instance, post #1255338

One of the character is dual sexed per commentary and thus does not count as yuri

Also, group sex images like post #2305207 and post #2346407 can still technically count as yuri because the background group isn't interacting with the male character (see topic #5842, particularly the responses at forum #56549 and forum #57017).

While I agree that the yuri tag can be applied when there are other heterosexual sex occurring on the same illustration, I believe it cannot be applied if the mass of background characters are conducting sexual act on other characters regarding of the sex of other characters being involved, just like both example images. As is, the background characters are sexually interacting with targets regardless of sex according to content of the picture, therefore it can be interpreted that sex is not the consideration of characters when they are doing such act, and as such it is most probably not suitable in applying the yuri tag here. Note that It's different from the previous scenario

Also another proposed criteria of exclusion from the yuri tag is that, if there are on-screen or in-commentary description that describes the objective of sexual interaction of multiple girls are for the pleasure of another individual of alternative sex.

Reply
iridescent slime

c933103 said:

One of the character is dual sexed per commentary and thus does not count as yuri

Thanks for that. Not familiar with the characters and there wasn't any translated commentary.

While I agree that the yuri tag can be applied when there are other heterosexual sex occurring on the same illustration, I believe it cannot be applied if the mass of background characters are conducting sexual act on other characters regarding of the sex of other characters being involved, just like both example images. As is, the background characters are sexually interacting with targets regardless of sex according to content of the picture, therefore it can be interpreted that sex is not the consideration of characters when they are doing such act, and as such it is most probably not suitable in applying the yuri tag here. Note that It's different from the previous scenario

I disagree that characters are "interacting with targets regardless of sex" or that it even matters. There's nothing to indicate that anyone here is simply picking partners at random, and even if they were, that alone isn't sufficient reason to change the tags. The hetero, yaoi, yuri, and bisexual tags are based on interactions between characters, not the (assumed) sexual preferences of those characters.

You have to look at the characters individually rather than just considering them all as a "mass". Both images depict male-female and female-female activity; therefore we tag them hetero and yuri. They should not be tagged bisexual as no one character is interacting with both a male and female character.

Reply
1