I think I can safely speak for at least a decent percentage of yuri fans when I say that many of us request and expect that anything labeled as "yuri" needs to be completely devoid of all male presence, and that includes bodily fluid.
Is there going to be any complaints if I remove the yuri tag from the eight pages worth of posts currently returned by yuri cum?
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with these posts themselves, only with how they are labeled. No doubt many of them would still be of interest to some yuri fans despite the male presence. Those posts can be added to pool #2138 - anyone searching there has been fairly warned.
An image with both homosexual and heterosexual sex would be properly tagged bisexual right now, though that tag needs some adjustments (particularly it needs a way to distinguish between different types of bisexual depictions).
Yuri's definition of excluding all elements of male presence (in the activities at least) is pretty much set in stone at this point and will not be changing.
Fencedude said: Anyway, if there is no male, its yuri, even if there is cum for some reason. But I'll double check them. Might not be for a couple of days.
So by that, you're saying that things such as two-target-bukkake like post #496965 should be left tagged as yuri just because the guys hosing them down are off-screen?
Right now I'm going through and cleaning up the list, fixing mis-tagged posts that really are yuri, and putting borderline stuff in the "almost" pool. If wanted, I can put the rest into another pool ("Semen-Garnished 'Yuri'" perhaps?) so they aren't lost - I can understand that this is something that some people might be looking for, even if it does squick me out completely.
Hillside_Moose said: Gee, if only there was some way to blacklist or negate tags we don't like. Too bad nothing like that exists on Danbooru.
Seriously. If you want to detag yuri on posts like post #358111 where the girls really don't look interested in each other at all, that's fine, but removing yuri from post #242987 strikes me as going overboard, and removing it from post #553439 because of the bit-part background guy is just absurd. Just blacklist yuri cum if it bothers you.
Then explain how. Just because a man masturbated on these women (possibly even had sex with them), there is no man doing ANYTHING with these women at that moment. Unless you have a good explanation, I'm retagging it as yuri.
For the second one especially, how is that not Yuri? They are literally all over each other. I don't see how the fact that someone dumped a bucket of cum (or some other substance) makes it not so. Its not what I prefer in my Yuri, but it doesn't turn me off so much I want to make it harder to find the damn image!
The main deciding factor is if there is a male in the image, and if so, is he actively involved? And pretty much anything with a dick is right out.
There's an image floating around of two girls on a couch making out (partially undressed), and sitting next to them is a fully clothed (and very uncomfortable) boy. Still a yuri image, since he's not involved and he doesn't have his dick out.
As for the aforementioned bukake situation, if its obvious that the cum is currently being ejaculated onto the girls from one or more off screen males (or futas, I guess), then no, thats not yuri. But for a lot of the images, the cum may as well be donut glaze for all the relevance it has to a male. And on some of them it could be sweat too.
Goddammit, who went and untagged all the images already!?
Fucking fuck fuck fuck.
Goddammit. I can't believe you just removed Yuri from 160 goddamn images! Holy shit.
Ok, I put the tag back on the images in pool #2347, if I accidentally put it on an image with a dick, take it off. But goddamn, why did you do this when we obviously hadn't come to any sort of conclusion!?
Edit: I'm going to be asleep until this afternoon, please wait till I wake up before making any more sweeping changes, ok? This isn't something that needs to be decided on right this goddamn moment.
Not that's it's worth much of anything, but I agree with Fencedude. Semen is not people. If a dude's not active in an image, then it's yuri. Heck, maybe the girls raided a sperm bank for shits & giggles. Tag what you see, not what you [assume].
CountPacula said: How so? There obviously was a substantial male participation in that scene - even if they aren't currently present, they certainly made it clear that they had been.
Well, setting aside the question of whether or not that's actually semen, consider it this way: the disagreement here is between whether yuri means "no sex acts with males" or "no hints of male presence". Certainly, there are groups of people who use either meaning; neither is trivially incorrect. The question, then becomes which meaning is more prevalent/more useful to more people; the answer, it seems to me, is almost certainly the former. There may be a group to whom the latter definition would be more useful (probably the sort of yuri fans you were considering in the OP), but Danbooru is not that group.
Also, consider the pros and cons of the different definitions with regard to tag searches. With the former definition, those who don't like semen in their yuri can avoid it by blacklisting yuri cum, a one-time operation. With the latter definition, on the other hand, those who don't care one way or the other must add pool:2347 to every search that contains yuri to ensure they're getting complete coverage.
Yes, that last argument could also be used to say that yuri should be tagged on all images with female-female sex, regardless of the presence of males; if not for the fact that male is so undertagged as to make a yuri male blacklist entry useless, that would be precisely the argument I would make.
Cyberia-Mix said: That and glasnost quoted the wrong post.
I quoted Hillside Moose to agree with him, hence the "Seriously." at the start of my post.
The problem here, as I said, lies in the use of cum tag for any white-sticky-thick fluid in the images. If we only tag that for posts we know surely, then the disagreement of yuri+cum is valid.
post #22025, post #48157, post #94842 are examples of what I wouldn't tag as cum. Those substances can be interpreted as thick saliva, lubricant, cream, or what-not. People who looking for ero materials wouldn't care what those are, true, but a thick_fluid tag instead is better against assumption.
post #553439 is definitely yuri, I don't argue. Touma made such an unimportant part of the image/event, and not even sexually, that "male presence" is not counted.
post #242987 - borderline, it's not yuri in my book and those are clearly cum.
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.
OK, I'm going to make a few quick [or not-so-quick] points, and then I'm going to go try to sleep on all of this for a while.
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?
My original point was basically that the definition of yuri here was too lax compared to what a big part of yuri fandom would expect, which is no male participation whatsoever.
I can't accept the idea of bukkake and yuri being ok together just because the males are off-screen. Don't most images of bukkake focus solely on the "target(s)"? Wouldn't that make virtually -all- multiple-girl bukkake images 'yuri'?
I don't see how it's going too far to say that the presence of cum-spatter indicates active male participation. Sure, they -may- have brought it from somewhere else themselves, but excepting the few cases where the stuff is actually shown being poured out of a container, that's going to be a really tough story to sell.
"for a lot of the images, the cum may as well be donut glaze for all the relevance it has" If it really is indistinguishable from 'generic messy substance', then it could very well acceptable, but in that case it shouldn't be labeled cum. But if it looks like it likely is the stuff, it should be labeled as such and not *ahem* "glazed over". I got slapped down myself - rightly so - for using "it might just be sweat" a short while ago, and this seems like an equivalent argument.