Topic: [Tag request] De-implicate Dominant from Big_Dom_Small_Sub

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Hammapajamma

Member

I noticed that a personal upload I had tagged with the Big Dom Small Sub tag suddenly seems to have a Dominant tag stuck on through implication.
I can't be fully sure if this is a new one (I'm unable to find a request or BUR that includes it), but it appears to be pretty recent because I'm sure I've tagged BDSS plenty of times in the past without Dominant getting added as well.

Regardless, this is a bit problematic in my opinion.

Dominant is mostly used to refer to a certain type of behavior, attitude and/or appearance, whereas Big Dom Small Sub (while including the word Dom) in practical terms is mostly just used to communicate there being a size difference between top and bottom. These can overlap but don't necessarily have to.

Even if that was the case, Big Top Small Bottom is currently one of BDSS' aliases, and by itself that doesn't say anything about behavior at all. It probably even gets used with regular M/F with a size difference sometimes, if some of the coming examples are any indication. This alias is probably the biggest complicating factor.

It's of course not possible for me to tell whether someone intentionally tagged something with BDSS or with BTSB which then got aliased to BDSS, but their intention aside, with this chain you now get stuff like this ending up with a Dominant tag:

post #124909 post #73823 post #115972 post #127468 post #122502 post #74813 post #40196 post #112435 post #110010 post #94322

A) Wholesome sex with no visible power play or any behavior that's decidedly dominant (y'know... the usual arrogant grins, mean eyes or aggressive teeth clenching, or pinning the bottom down, or nape/shoulder biting etc.)

B) Angles where you can't even see what's going on with the pitching party or either one.

For what I assume has to be the same reason, we've never implicated Submissive to BDSS either, and it still isn't. Neither does the implication exist for the reversed Small Dom Big Sub. So as it stands, it's not just pretty nonsensical but inconsistent too.

Updated

Hammapajamma

Member

kalethorebiter said:

"Dominant" is in the name of the tag, and looking at all the implications it is not an accident.

What you're looking for is size_difference.

You mean with my upload?

Possibly, yes, combined with Larger Male and Smaller Male tags. That works. But because they don't have entries explaining them either, I've always felt a bit unsure whether those are meant to be exclusive tags (implying that the other party be the opposite sex), or if they can be used concurrently in a same-sex situation. Is that just me overthinking it?

But anyway: you may be right, but tell that to the many users who also don't seem to follow your textbook definition of the tag. Having implications or not is also about practicality.

Even if we were able to relay to every new user that there must be a visibly dominant partner for there to be a big_dom, there's still the matter of that Big Top Small Bottom alias that just doesn't play well with an automatic Dominant tag on Big_Dom_Small_Sub, and in turn, it.
So something still has to be done about that or this implication.

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

The bulk update request #440 is pending approval.

create alias big_on_bottom (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create alias bigger_on_bottom (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create alias large_on_bottom (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create alias larger_on_bottom (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create alias small_on_top (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create implication big_dom_small_sub (421) -> submissive (1771)
create implication small_dom_big_sub (234) -> submissive (1771)
create implication small_dom_big_sub (234) -> dominant (2367)
create implication big_on_top (0) -> size_difference (4821)
create implication small_on_top (0) -> size_difference (4821)
remove alias bigger_on_top (0) -> larger_on_top (11)

Reason: Several

Follow Up

alias small_on_bottom -> bigger_on_top
alias smaller_on_bottom -> bigger_on_top
alias big_on_top -> bigger_on_top
alias large_on_top -> bigger_on_top
alias larger_on_top -> bigger_on_top

1. Creating/Taking into account new tags that can be use in size_difference outside of sexual encounter and/or non-BDSM sexual scenes.

2. Looking at all the alias for big_dom_small_sub, the submissive implication is needed.

3. To match big_dom_small_sub, the 2 next implications are needed

4. Create implications for new tags

Updated

Hammapajamma

Member

kalethorebiter said:
The bulk update request #440 is pending approval.

create alias big_on_bottom (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create alias bigger_on_bottom (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create alias large_on_bottom (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create alias larger_on_bottom (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create alias small_on_top (0) -> smaller_on_top (3)
create implication big_dom_small_sub (421) -> submissive (1771)
create implication small_dom_big_sub (234) -> submissive (1771)
create implication small_dom_big_sub (234) -> dominant (2367)
create implication big_on_top (0) -> size_difference (4821)
create implication small_on_top (0) -> size_difference (4821)
remove alias bigger_on_top (0) -> larger_on_top (11)

Lemme get this straight — by creating a bunch of non-specific size tags, the big/small dom-sub tags become more clearly defined as belonging to a certain niche?

Yeah, I suppose that could work too. Or at least it'd help.

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

hammapajamma said:
That works. But because they don't have entries explaining them either, I've always felt a bit unsure whether those are meant to be exclusive tags (implying that the other party be the opposite sex), or if they can be used concurrently in a same-sex situation. Is that just me overthinking it?

You really don't have to overthink it: the gender, sexual orientations, etc don't have an effect on anything unless the tag refers to the gender/sexual orientation/etc.

— Is there a large character on top? If yes, the tag applies.

hammapajamma said:
But anyway: you may be right, but tell that to the many users who also don't seem to follow your textbook definition of the tag. Having implications or not is also about practicality.

It's not my textbook, it's the users' textbook: Anyone is free to give their inputs. However, once a communal decision is taken, everyone must abide by it. The fact that members have done shoddy tagging work is not an excuse, and people can get flagged for misusing tags.

If you see an error, you should edit the post to fix it.

Also no: Implications are about implications. It's not a "will-add-it-for-yah" system. To be valid, an implication must always be true.

  • Now I concede there was a culture of making alias and implications to teach people that one tag had a stricter definition: like gay's aliased to male/male. I find it stupid, but it is what it is.

hammapajamma said:
Even if we were able to relay to every new user that there must be a visibly dominant partner for there to be a big_dom, there's still the matter of that Big Top Small Bottom alias that just doesn't play well with an automatic Dominant tag on Big_Dom_Small_Sub, and in turn, it.
So something still has to be done about that or this implication.

Wha? I'm confused.

Let me say that: all users must know about TWYS before tagging.

Now, tagging big_dom if there's nothing to show the size difference to something small, then it's not TWYS. Same thing for dominant, you can not dominate "nothing".

INB4: What about "dominant looking" characters? That subjective — so not TWYS. You can say the character has a sneer, a naughty smile, a suggestive posture, but you should not tag something that "you know" that is not depicted

Updated

Hammapajamma

Member

kalethorebiter said:
You really don't have to overthink it: the gender, sexual orientations, etc don't have an effect on anything unless the tag refers to the gender/sexual orientation/etc.

— Is there a large character on top? If yes, the tag applies.

Cool, will do. 👍

Wha? I'm confused.

Let me say that: all users must know about TWYS before tagging.

Now, tagging big_dom if there's nothing to show the size difference to something small, then it's not TWYS. Same thing for dominant, you can not dominate "nothing".

What I meant is that I get the impression that there's a group of people in the LGBTQ space who seem to associate the words dom and sub with the giving and receiving partner in general, so if there's a size difference they'll call that big dom, small sub.
In their eyes, they would be tagging what they see.

Yes, they're doing it wrong because they use fetish language as a catch-all, and most people would rather use 'top and bottom' in a neutral sex situation, which is more usable as a general term.
But even that doesn't matter, because with that alias in place you currently still end up with Dom and Sub (and thus Dominant) in ways that could be very much unintentional.

Like I said before, on second thought the alias to Dom/Sub could actually be the bigger issue here than the Dominant implication on Dom/Sub.

Course, if you're attentive you could take notice of your top/bottom tag being changed to dom/sub + dominant and realize you're probably using the wrong tag by site standards, I guess...
Though at least having a wiki entry that tells you what you should be using instead would be helpful.

Now, I know you're gonna say that I'm free to write one, and you're not wrong.
But it's hard to write instructions for tags that are clearly somewhat open to misinterpretation when you're not the one making the rules (and also uncertain about actually fully understanding them yourself because you see them being applied to so many different kinds of posts).

That seems more like a job for the staff, tbh. At least with these kinds of tags. The community can still do the grunt work for the more clear-cut ones of course, no problem.

INB4: What about "dominant looking" characters? That subjective — so not TWYS. You can say the character has a sneer, a naughty smile, a suggestive posture, but you should not tag something that "you know" that is not depicted

I admit to having given this some consideration before, but not always acting in accordance. 😅 Sometimes the vibe still just seemed so obvious that it didn't feel like I was adding excessive personal interpretation into my tagging work, even without someone actively pulling a leash or assertively groping a butt, or pounding their partner into the dirt or something.

But I get what you mean, especially when it comes to solo pics. I've so far been pretty conservative with adding dominant (_male or _female) tags to those for that reason, while also not considering it completely untaggable because you 100% need another actor involved for it not to break TWYS by default.

--

Again, perhaps a higher-up could chime in on what exactly is allowed to have these tags. Like, do you need a domineering action to be present, or does simply having sex with a certain set of 'less sympathetic' expressions count?

(For example, power_bottom often hinges hard on this when there's no text, and without it becomes almost impossible to tag without at least a tiny bit of leeway for interpretation.)

If so, what constitutes an objectively domineering action?
Cause there's lots of ways for dominance to be expressed, but saying 'this is dominant behavior' can quickly become at least a tad subjective outside of clear BDSM or very rough sex, while at the same time clearly still being content that people into the subject would enjoy getting returned when they search the tag.

And can dominant_male or dominant_female be applicable to (textless) solo stuff to begin with, or is it already too multi-interprable at that point because there's nobody else around to act as the sub?

--

Meanwhile, I'll try using more expression-based tags like suggestive_look and sneer instead. Seems like hardly anyone is doing those. The only popular ones are {smile}}, grin, smirk and naughty_face (and of those, only Grin really pertains to the typical 'it don't suck itself' or 'you like that, biatch?' look, sometimes frown too if it's not a sad one).

...Though barely being tagged also means they're probably not often being searched for either, and I do prefer having my shit or shit I like be actually found by people. :/ But oh well.

Updated

Technical-Grid

Janitor

The e621 wiki page explains it sufficiently enough i guess https://e621.net/wiki_pages/4448 (our wiki database simply haven't been able to be copied from e621 in bulk)
Tldr: The dominant/submissive aspect must be somewhat present in the image for the tag to apply- "Topping is not synonymous with dominant, and bottoming is not synonymous with submissive".

People mistag it because they're dumb/lazy and they don't read the wikis, so feel free to flag/report mistagging instances of this

Hammapajamma

Member

technical-grid said:
Tldr: The dominant/submissive aspect must be somewhat present in the image for the tag to apply- "Topping is not synonymous with dominant, and bottoming is not synonymous with submissive".

Kewl, okay. But then the Big Top Small Bottom alias shouldn't be there, right?

E621 doesn't have it, sensibly, cause it would totally conflict with that line.

Hammapajamma

Member

Also... can't really fault them for not reading wiki entries if they're empty. 🤷‍♂️

I'll try to make a quick copy-paste of their page with relevant examples of our own.

Just to be fully clear: solo is out of the question? edit: dumb question, the big_dom_small_sub page is plural by default. Never mind I brainfarted. Their dominant male page seems to exclude solo scenarios so I guess there's my answer.

Updated

Technical-Grid

Janitor

hammapajamma said:
Kewl, okay. But then the Big Top Small Bottom alias shouldn't be there, right?

E621 doesn't have it, sensibly, cause it would totally conflict with that line.

Yeah, our tag database was ported from an older version of e621, because there were some major compatibility issues or so, so we need to slowly catch up.
And yes, it shouldn't be there - weirdly enough e621 doesn't even have "Big Top Small Bottom" but does have "Small Top Big Bottom" https://e621.net/wiki_pages/29691 which indeed soen't have the analogue alias

Hammapajamma

Member

https://e6ai.net/wiki_pages/1565
https://e6ai.net/wiki_pages/1567

Alright, made two entries that should help a little, hope the examples are okay picks.

Couldn't be arsed to add the related tags lists from E621 right now though, cause on here that just quickly leads you down a rabbit hole of still empty wiki pages that in turn are to be filled with links to way, way more empty pages. And I ain't doing all those by hand. 😅

Or maybe I could, but I'd have to find my E621 password so I can actually Ctrl+C all the DText.

(btw, we seem to have a little formatting error, because the last line of your entry gets visually stuck against the alias list until you force a line break with a character).

Updated