Is there a reason for this tag? I highly doubt male pubic hair deserves its own distinct spot. Arguments welcome of course.
Updated by jxh2154
Posted under General
Is there a reason for this tag? I highly doubt male pubic hair deserves its own distinct spot. Arguments welcome of course.
Updated by jxh2154
I can see the usefulness of it; some people would rather not see it on male figures, but don't mind it on female ones. For that, having a male pubic hair tag referring to the male's, and the pubic hair tag for the female's, is fair. Not ideal, but fair.
This was my doing. At least it's been noticed, now. I figure that since the focus of this site is more on females, having a distinction on whether or not the tagged pubic_hair of a picture could just all be on the featureless male would be useful. Heck, perhaps it could be defined as "the only pubic hair is the male's/males'," like some unholy fusion of the male and pubic_hair tags.
Tieria said:
Isn't that a little bit too nit-picky? Pubic hair is pubic hair.
Probably so, but again, I can see where a user might want a line to be drawn between them. It wouldn't be a functionless tag.
The real problem I see is that gardening tags to reflect the difference would probably be difficult, to say the least.
I'd still implicate it to ordinary pubic_hair. If you're really offended by male pubes, you can filter out male_pubic_hair, but I see no reason to pretend they're somehow qualitatively different from female ones.
While I'd be fine with implication, my concern is for filtering images containing female pubic hair, some of which may be eliminated by a "pubic_hair -male_pubic_hair" search.
Updated
If we're going to implicate, then I'd rather scrap the tag entirely and continue using just pubic_hair.
T5J8F8 said:
While I'd fine with implication, my concern is for filtering images containing female pubic hair, some of which may be eliminated by a "pubic_hair -male_pubic_hair" search.
Should there be a female pubic hair tag, then?
sgcdonmai said:
Should there be a female pubic hair tag, then?
I really wouldn't want it to come to that. Even male_pubic_hair_only would seem like a better alternative.
I still think this is going a bit overboard. If you don't mind pubic hair, I don't see why it's a problem to have it on both genders.
If you dislike it, then filter out pubic_hair. Shrug.
Actually, that's the reverse of my concern. How many pictures can you think of with a no-hair-down-there girl engaged with a bushed guy? What if you wanted to find images of no-so-shaved girls? If male_pubic_hair is aliased to pubic_hair, this would make searching out fuzzy females more difficult.
Uh, to resurrect this thread (happy halloween), I wanted to point out that this is still kinda a problem. I'm sorry if we're not supposed to necro threads here, but it seemed like best to continue this topic.
NeverGonnaGive said:
Actually, that's the reverse of my concern. How many pictures can you think of with a no-hair-down-there girl engaged with a bushed guy? What if you wanted to find images of no-so-shaved girls? If male_pubic_hair is aliased to pubic_hair, this would make searching out fuzzy females more difficult.
In particular, this part. Basically, images with something like two partners who both have pubic hair will be omitted if your goal is to subtract off only male pubic hair from the index results. If you go with pubic hair you see all male and female pubic hair, so it's hard to just get straight female pubic hair only.
I think the best solution to this problem is to have a male pubic hair only tag that restricts it so that you can filter out only images with only males with pubic hair, while leaving all females with pubic hair engaged with acts with males with pubic hair.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned stray_pubic_hair yet, which might have been the original idea behind this.