Yuri / Cum - Mutually exclusive tags

But it's not a male participant. It's a substance, not a being. And, again, it's balls-all easy just to set cum -yuri in the blacklist (or just cum on its own, if you're so [dis]inclined).

EDIT: And I wouldn't tag a few girls waiting for a reception from an off-screen sperm-donor to be yuri; only if there's no indication of active male involvement and a presence of active female engagement would it seem like yuri. Still not sure if I'd consider one girl spreading another toward the viewer to be yuri or not, though...

rantuyetmai said:
EDIT: As for glasnost's last input, it's time to consider the definition of yuri we use (again). "Girls loving other girls romantically or sexually", sure. But any sexual presence of male should automatically replace yuri with bisexual. (emphasis mine)

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that this is your opinion. However, as you've noted, the wiki says nothing on the matter, past forum threads only cover the question of whether or not penises belong in yuri and not the topic at hand, and your interpretation of semen as a male sexual presence that disqualifies a post from yuri is in the minority in this thread (and I would be astounded if it was not also in the minority among Danbooru users at large). On top of that, blacklisting yuri cum is such a simple and complete fix for this issue that I can scarcely believe we're even discussing it.

OK, I've got another idea that that might actually satisfy everybody here. The basic problem is one of definition, and that I didn't realize how attached some people were to the current definition until I tried to move it to what I thought was 'right'.

So if we have two different definitions of what constitutes 'yuri', why don't we make it two tags, one for each definition?

yuri - As current - girl-girl with no actual men.
pure yuri - Subset of the above that has not even a hint of male presence of any kind, possibly going as far as 'no phallic toys'.

This way those of us who want the higher standard will be able to have it, but it won't require any work or change for those not interested. The more I think about this, the more I like the idea - I really think this is the right way to go. (That said though, I'll probably feel a bit less excited after I see just how many dozens of pages of images will need that 'pure' tag added...)

After looking at the back and forth, my conclusion is that we're going with Fencedude's definition.

I negate cum from the majority of searches I do anyway (I'd just blacklist it if that wouldn't get in the way of admin-y things), and I'll continue to do that with yuri. I may not like post #242987 whatsoever and frankly think the cum utterly ruins it, but it's still yuri. I'm not going to like every yuri image, no matter how much I like yuri.

So, no need to complicate it terribly. If there are no males engaged in the sex, but two or more females are, then it's yuri. If two girls are making out with each other while they're being penetrated by two other guys, it's not yuri, but it's the almost yuri pool.

There will still be borderline cases, but we just live with that on a case by case basis. It's not the end of the world.

CountPacula said:
OK, I've got another idea that that might actually satisfy everybody here. The basic problem is one of definition, and that I didn't realize how attached some people were to the current definition until I tried to move it to what I thought was 'right'.

Here's the thing, you don't get to decide what is right, keep that in mind in the future when you have a brilliant idea for sweeping changes.

Anyway, jxh said we're keeping things as they were, so we'll do that. Do me a favor and go and fix any images you took the yuri tag off of that I didn't already change back.

Fencedude said:
*stomp* *stomp* *stomp*

Sir, Yes, Sir! Sir, standing duly smacked down, Sir!

jxh2154 said:
If there are no males engaged in the sex, but two or more females are, then it's yuri.

This is just begging the question. The whole disagreement is over what counts as male engagement, and particularly if the the mere presence of cum is enough to count.

If two girls are making out with each other while they're being penetrated by two other guys, it's not yuri, but it's the almost yuri pool.

This kind of situation is precisely what the bisexual tag was made for.

CountPacula said:
I agree that a non-participating male audience by itself, where the girls aren't interacting with the audience at all, shouldn't invalidate an image. However, if the girls are clearly 'performing' for the male's sake, shouldn't he be considered part of the scene?

I agree with this. There are a lot of things under yuri cum that I wouldn't call yuri, not because there's cum present, but because the girls are portrayed as being less interested in each other and more in the male viewer that's implied to have just fucked/came all over them. E.g. post #572189, post #701843, and most everything under yuri take_your_pick.

evazion said: This is just begging the question. The whole disagreement is over what counts as male engagement, and particularly if the the mere presence of cum is enough to count.

I'm talking about a physical body presence in the image, engaged in the sex act itelf. Therefore that Railgun bus orgy image is still yuri, of course. The male is not touching or even near any of them.

but because the girls are portrayed as being less interested in each other and more in the male viewer that's implied to have just fucked/came all over them.

Unfortunately that's the case with plenty of yuri, cum-filled or not. Artists seem to have a very hard time realizing that yuri works better if their eye contact is with each other, not the viewer. A huge percentage of yuri is cop-out yuri but hey, this is the same country that struggles with writing girl-girl doujins without one of the girls growing a penis or three.

At any rate it's all something to keep in mind when tagging, and there will be lots of gray areas, but I really don't see any merit in a black and white rule.

A black-and-white rule would be awfully convenient for me and my blacklist...

sgcdonmai said:
A black-and-white rule would be awfully convenient for me and my blacklist...

Which has a very strict limit on the amount of exclusions it can contain, rite?

Now that we had a conclusion, I think pool #2347 (Semen-Garnished "Yuri") is not necessary anymore. Anything with a yuri tag in this pool can be searched with yuri cum, anything that doesn't is already in "Almost Yuri". Can we delete it?

CountPacula said:
The only current example of that seems to be post #553439, which, yes, definitely seems absurd to not consider yuri.

Really? That's the only one out of the 700000+ posts on Danbooru?

Obviously I haven't checked every post to confirm this and I'm not going to attempt to. But if nothing else, you've got to acknowledge the possibility of multi-panel posts where one panel shows a heterosexual scene and another shows yuri.

Sorry Magus, but that matter had settled down so it's best to not revoke another argument about it. I just want to ask about whether the semen yuri pool is necessary anymore.

Okay, on a related topic, there's a bit of disagreement between myself and rantuyetmai in regard to post #851759.

In the background, Sakuya and Remilia are engaged in some yuri foot-licking.

In the foreground, Koakuma (futanari) is penetrating Meiling.

I would argue that, regardless of what's going on in the back row, prominent futa on female content like that is just too much dick in the pic to keep the yuri tag on.

Thoughts?

It's things like that that made me propose that we might need something like a female_on_female tag in forum #47164, though everyone kept misunderstanding what I was trying to say. Particularly thinking that I wanted to redefine the yuri tag, when I was trying to promote a new tag to cover cases the yuri tag did not.

Disagree. Those are two completely separate things going on, and should be tagged as such.

I could be wrong, but didn't the argument with bisexual and yuri result in that if the image could be tagged bixsexual, even if there was yuri going on in the scene (with no male involvement) that it would not be tagged yuri? If that is the case, then even if there is yuri going on separate from futa_on_female, because its in the image it still would not be tagged yuri.

Assume that there is an image with 2 beds, 2 persons on each of them. All of them are having sex and don't interact with the people on the other bed. The 2 on left bed are both men, the 2 on the right bed are both women. There is no logical reason for the image NOT to be tagged with both yaoi and yuri tag. "If I search for yuri, I don't want to see dicks/cum" is not a valid argument. Negate your searches -penis/-cum. If you don't tag yuri because there is a penis, and you don't tag yaoi because there is a pussy, you won't be able to find this image at all.

Bisexual can only be tagged if there is (homosexual + heterosexual) interactions between 3+ people, so it makes sense for bisexual to replace yaoi/yuri for those 3+ people, but not for any other people also in the image.

post #851759: I didn't consider the toe sucking to be yuri, not with Remilia's and Sakuya's expressions, so I didn't tag it.

S1eth said:
....
There is no logical reason for the image NOT to be tagged with both yaoi and yuri tag. "If I search for yuri, I don't want to see dicks/cum" is not a valid argument. Negate your searches -penis/-cum. If you don't tag yuri because there is a penis, and you don't tag yaoi because there is a pussy, you won't be able to find this image at all.

Bisexual can only be tagged if there is (homosexual + heterosexual) interactions between 3+ people, so it makes sense for bisexual to replace yaoi/yuri for those 3+ people, but not for any other people also in the image.

This is my opinion as well.

post #851759: toe sucking?-check, 2 females?-check, sexual situation?-check, so the yuri tag is warranted.

S1eth said:
post #851759: I didn't consider the toe sucking to be yuri, not with Remilia's and Sakuya's expressions, so I didn't tag it.

It seems pretty damn sexual to me.