problem with "must be visible" arguments for tags

Posted under General

Protests have been made to my idea for tagging art where someone is having sex other than their orientation, like for example showing a gay male having sex with a female or a gay female having sex with a male.

This is on the basis that sexuality is not "visible" and therefore we can only describe the nature of the act and not how it relates to the character.

The problem I have with this is that it's inconsistent with other tagging practices where we describe non-visible things on the basis of what we know about characters.

For example: what might visibly just be a loli and a shota together could be "incest" like "brother and sister" (ie Bart and Lisa) or "cousincest" (ie Ben and Gwen) because of what we know is canonically established about character identity in a franchise.

I don't see why orientation would be any different. So long as it's soundly based (the creator/writer of a show says something, or there is evidence in the show itself) saying something like "Dumbledore is gay for Grindelwald" should be just as acceptable as "Dumbledore and Aberforth are brothers". Both come directly from the character creators.

If we can have a tag reflecting "character is having sex with character established to be family" then why can't we have "character established as gay is having sex with opposite sex" ?

We might debate upon criteria for inclusion (ie what proof do we need someone is family? what proof do we need someone is gay?) but the concept seems right either way.

tyciol said:
The problem I have with this is that it's inconsistent with other tagging practices where we describe non-visible things on the basis of what we know about characters.

what are you talking about?
i have pm you and made it very easy: you as uploader have to add tags for everything what we can see on the pic.

no fan fiction, no fantasy tags...

1