Cleft of Venus (simplification)

BUR #9842 has been rejected.

create alias cleft_of_venus -> pussy_slit

Cleft of Venus is too scientific and everyone seems to have a different definition. Now that its wiki has been updated, it's a lot more clear.

@Hyozen pointed it out that if you Google "pussy slit," it gives the most accurate results so I created the BUR with that as the main tag name.

We need to alias it to one of the alternatives. My reasoning is that people don't read wikis and if they meet a strange tag (like cleft of Venus), they simply ignore it.

Candidates include:

• pussy slit (or slit_pussy but it sounds like a guro tag...)
• single-line pussy (from a DMail by @Toks)
• pussy line (2 users)
• innie pussy (1 user)

Honestly one of the worst names for a tag I've ever heard.

BUR #9847 has been rejected.

create alias cleft_of_venus -> innie_pussy

Suggesting this tag as an alternative and for consistency with outie pussy, hoping that this time, the tag won't be used for everything like cleft of venus.

That sounds even worse.

EDIT: Since when did we have an outie_pussy tag, anyway? Who thought it was a good idea to go with something so childish? We only use pussy in the first place because it can refer to either the vulva or the vagina, not as an invitation to make up tags that are even more vulgar.

iridescent_slime said:

That sounds even worse.

EDIT: Since when did we have an outie_pussy tag, anyway? Who thought it was a good idea to go with something so childish? We only use pussy in the first place because it can refer to either the vulva or the vagina, not as an invitation to make up tags that are even more vulgar.

It was created without consensus during topic #20693

blindVigil said:

It was created without consensus during topic #20693

And looking at the results at random I see stuff like post #5270976 and post #5267845 and post #5284226 (how can you even tell?) which makes me question whether this tag has any use at all.

When I said I was fine with tagging this kind of thing, it was with the assumption that it should only be used for when it's actually noticeable, not for every single post of a spread pussy.

iridescent slime said:

Since when did we have an outie_pussy tag, anyway? Who thought it was a good idea to go with something so childish? We only use pussy in the first place because it can refer to either the vulva or the vagina, not as an invitation to make up tags that are even more vulgar.

Yes, but if you take a look, "vagina" is really only used in artificial_vagina and its derivatives (as mentioned in forum #210111) and everything else uses "pussy." The other tags are "vaginal" something.

For "vulva," it's only partially_visible_vulva and bad_vulva.

I'm not saying that we have to stick to "vulgar" names but it's the trend. We can strive to change that.

P.S.: We've also tried not naming it labia_minora and similar because then it's going to be misinterpreted by most people. A scientific alias is okay but the main name should be "recognizable" in my opinion.

nonamethanks said:

And looking at the results at random I see stuff like post #5270976 and post #5267845 and post #5284226 (how can you even tell?) which makes me question whether this tag has any use at all.

We can modify the definition at any time. Right now it's "Tag when the inner lips are longer than the outer lips."
post #5270976 and post #5267845 have noticable curvatures to them but we can "forbid" the tag on non-closed ones if that's the problem.
I've spend quite a lot of time at examining heavily censored ones like post #5284226 and I got to the conclusion that the labia minora are clearly protruding.

nonamethanks said:

When I said I was fine with tagging this kind of thing, it was with the assumption that it should only be used for when it's actually noticeable, not for every single post of a spread pussy.

If you can objectively specify what's noticeable I'm fine with that.

---

All in all, I'm not pushing the change of cleft_of_Venus if it isn't wanted but I think outie_pussy (or whatever you want to rename it to) has a reasonable place.

The assumed point of this tag was to find female genitals that have a noticeable labia minora. If the sole criteria is the existence of that anatomical part then every single spread pussy post technically qualifies for it. Might as well just search for pussy -loli.

nonamethanks said:

The assumed point of this tag was to find female genitals that have a noticeable labia minora. If the sole criteria is the existence of that anatomical part then every single spread pussy post technically qualifies for it. Might as well just search for pussy -loli.

In fact most spread pussies don't qualify. If you take a closer look: post #5181954, post #5285000, post #5252461 either don't have it or it isn't protruding. Also, we have a LOT of "single-line pussies" even if you remove lolies.

Even if you want to remove physics from the equation and ignore that post #5080073 has the labia "flapped" as opposed to stretched, there are undeniably spread pussies that have prominent labia minora that are certainly visible "when the pussy is closed." Take post #590551 and post #5141656 as examples.

What I could see as a conclusion without many changes is that we properly define cleft_of_venus and use the search pussy -cleft_of_venus for "detailed" pussies. (cleft_of_venus isn't a clean antonym of outie_pussy right now but it seems the difference is too minor for people to notice...)

The bulk update request #9847 (forum #210417) has been rejected by @Hyozen.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

BUR #10533 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

nuke outie_pussy

Well, given that nobody is using this tag and that it was created without consensus, and given that the tag has a lot of absurd posts like post #5281280 and post #5279256, and given that we already have long labia, I don't see the point in keeping it around.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #9842 (forum #210404) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

The bulk update request #10533 (forum #213753) has been approved by @nonamethanks.