Danbooru

Question: futa_on_female

Posted under General

wiki: futa_on_female
'If you can't see the genitals of one or more of the females involved, use the rule of "fully female until proven otherwise".'
This line has been added by Kayako a year ago. Since futa_on_female has never been discussed in the forum, I ask if this statement is generally supported.

From the first page of the tag:
post #769371
post #762599
post #761411 (read the comments about the sound effects)
post #750409
post #740637
post #724971, post #724972 ,post #724973

If it is supported, what counts as proof? A sound effect (I'm not sure about the translation, though)? A pixiv tag (note that tags added by the artist themselves are marked with an asterisk *, other tags can't count as proof) aka "word of god" = "the artist said so"?

In all those pictures, the genitals aren't visible. They either lack a source or the futanari tag on pixiv. Could be futa, tribadism, strap-on other sex toys.

Updated by Katajanmarja

S1eth said: If it is supported, what counts as proof?

Only actually seeing the flesh of a real penis makes it a penis. In all other cases it's nothing more than an assumption without visual proof.

"Tag what you see" and all that. So yes Kayako's line is correct.

"Tag what you see", yes, but I think there are more factors that go into it than the immediately obvious. Certain things may be put in the image to make it plainly obvious that it's meant to be seen as futanari.
e.g.: post #761411; jokes about "installation", hip-thrusting, coital sound effects, and nothing to indicate the presence of a strap-on rather than the more obvious organs.

There's also pixiv tags to consider. post #762599 is tagged as futa on pixiv, for example.

post #724971, post #724972 ,post #724973: These are obviously a set. The first doesn't really indicate anything. The second makes it obvious that penetration has occurred (virgin blood). The third features dripping semen, so it's plainly obvious.

I could go on, but to keep things fairly short, I feel that more should be taken into account than the actual visibility of penises or lack thereof.

I lean towards Sgcdonmai's views, and especially support the comment regarding image sets where one image "reveals the truth".

However:

post #761411; jokes about "installation", hip-thrusting, coital sound effects, and nothing to indicate the presence of a strap-on rather than the more obvious organs.

...When I see a female shagging another female, my intuitive logic goes, "nothing to indicate the presence of the unlikely organs rather than the more obvious strap-on."

You know, I have nothing against futanari art (heck, I've even paid cash money for a book by Hinemosunotari), so I guess I must be old-fashioned.

Katajanmarja said:
When I see a female shagging another female, my intuitive logic goes, "nothing to indicate the presence of the unlikely organs rather than the more obvious strap-on."

Compared to the prevalence of futanari in Japanese erotic media, the use of strap-ons is very rare. Consider the source, and all that.

Yes, artist tags can trump "tag what you see", although we usually invoke that in terms of characters or copyrights we can't otherwise distinguish and the like. It's a lot more complicated to invoke it in cases where we're talking about physical objects (penises) that are not visible at all in the image. But if the artist tagged as such I wouldn't remove it from a post if someone added it.

sgcdonmai said:

Compared to the prevalence of futanari in Japanese erotic media, the use of strap-ons is very rare. Consider the source, and all that.

I simply had not browsed hardcore yuri and futa systematically enough to realize this. I trust your expertise.

1