Flopsy said:
I replaced futanari with yuri on post #8086693, Wilfriback undid this. There's is nothing in the image itself indicating that either character is a futa. Should it be tagged that way anyway strictly by contextual clues (child post is futa, artist draws a lot of futa_with_female, etc.)? I'm personally in favor of a quite strict post-by-post "tag what you see" policy based on wiki definitions, since that restrains subjective interpretations and is most relevant for searches (e.g. If you're looking for yuri, does it matter that the child post isn't?), but some other users clearly aren't.
I would encourage everyone above to read the essay I wrote addressing exactly these issues: forum #272717
In the case of this image, there's a sex position that's very strongly associated with penetrative sex. However, no plap-plap or thrusting motion is present. The artist tagged it as futa, and the child post is an identical variant except with the penis made visible. It's in a grey area, but weighing everything, I would tag it as implied_futanari and futa_with_female.
The most important considerations are that it's a typical penetrative sex position and that the otherwise identical child variant shows the penis explicitly, making clear how the parent is intended to be interpreted. The "artist's vision" is only relevant when the picture itself is ambiguous, and it is the factor of least importance when the image itself is clear. Plenty of artists simply use tags like futa and yuri differently than we do, so what they call their art is very often irrelevant.
Tagging problems such as these are always subjective and require interpretation. That's a necessary element in accurate, effective tagging. Assuming that there's 2 vaginas there instead of a vagina and a penis is equally subjective interpretation. We look at what the image tells us, we make reasonable inferences based on what we see, and we tag accordingly.
