Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag alias #82063 human'd -> human_fetish is pending approval.
Reason: Human'd is just described as human fetish on the wiki, and human fetish mentions "humaned" as an example.
I went through the human'd tag and cleaned it up, replacing it with human fetish when it applied.
Side note, most of the images with this tag didn't even have a human fetish, just sex involving a human. Some specifically mentioned how they weren't interested in humans...
It's interesting that multiple people were tagging that and it was used a decent amount. I've never heard of "human'd" and it's certainly not a real word.
braixenarchivist said:
Side note, most of the images with this tag didn't even have a human fetish, just sex involving a human. Some specifically mentioned how they weren't interested in humans...
I wonder if it should just be aliased to invalid tag, then?
The bulk update request #13502 is pending approval.
create alias hominophilia (20) -> human_fetish (356)
Reason: Same, I think
crocogator said:
It's interesting that multiple people were tagging that and it was used a decent amount. I've never heard of "human'd" and it's certainly not a real word.
it's a take on "blacked" and similarly-named raceplay kinks.
crocogator said:
I wonder if it should just be aliased to invalid tag, then?
I'd say that the tag is still valid even if there's mistags in it.
dba_afish said:
I'd say that the tag is still valid even if there's mistags in it.
Depends on how mistagged it is, really. In my experience, *_fetish tags have a high degree of mistags from people with the given fetish tagging it on most things that tickles that fetish for them, irrespective of whether the thing is actually being fetishized in the image.
If the tag's largely tagged on posts that just have a human or human/anthro interaction, or just references a human in text, or has a description mentioning humans, it's not really valid for TWYS. And if cleaning it out will just result in people continuing to tag it on those things it shouldn't be tagged on (if not re-tag it on posts it was removed from), it's probably best to just get rid of it and suggest people use the existing human tags we already have.
As it is, "human fetish" feels close enough to things like "feral fetish"/zoophilia, which is aliased away for being too subjective and instead rely on bestiality, pawprint_tattoo, and other tags that relate to visible activity or elements that would imply a fetish for the viewer.
See forum #436182.
braixenarchivist said:
The tag alias #82063 human'd -> human_fetish is pending approval.Reason: Human'd is just described as human fetish on the wiki, and human fetish mentions "humaned" as an example.
I went through the human'd tag and cleaned it up, replacing it with human fetish when it applied.Side note, most of the images with this tag didn't even have a human fetish, just sex involving a human. Some specifically mentioned how they weren't interested in humans...
yeah but that's a common trope of these kinds of fetishes, that the woman is initially disgusted by the titular emphasized species/race but eventually overcome by their sexual strength
Also a human fetish is not necessarily the human'd fetish, a human fetish could include fetishes where humans are dominated by other species whereas m human'd is about human men dominating other species.
Updated
yumbly said:
Also a human fetish is not necessarily human'd fetish, a human fetish could include fetishes where humans are dominated by other species whereas m human'd is about human men dominating other species.
Is there any reason dominant_human doesn't work for this?
eightoflakes said:
Is there any reason dominant_human doesn't work for this?
I assume it does, I'm only concerned with what I view as a mischaracterization of fetishes and tropes
crocogator said:
It's interesting that multiple people were tagging that and it was used a decent amount. I've never heard of "human'd" and it's certainly not a real word.I wonder if it should just be aliased to invalid tag, then?
If it's got a human, one way or another, then shouldn't aliasing to human be best?
furrin_gok said:
If it's got a human, one way or another, then shouldn't aliasing to human be best?
It doesn't always:
post #6182918 post #3692558
yumbly said:
yeah but that's a common trope of these kinds of fetishes, that the woman is initially disgusted by the titular emphasized species/race but eventually overcome by their sexual strength
Assuming they don't say otherwise after being 'convinced', that seems more like plain rape to me.
Even if HMOFA users mistag this concept on occasion it's definitely something that HMOFA creators are interested in. Kekitopu's Bombun actually has a human fetish, Hitoner is about a human among furries, Cavemanon Studios is basically nothing but this, and some other media lend themselves well to this because their character dynamics force certain characters to only be romantically involved with humans: Fire Emblem units who are basically a single-gender species until they have a child, Rune Factory "monster" spouses, token nonhumans who are player-sexual in a game where the player can only be a human, etc.
braixenarchivist said:
Assuming they don't say otherwise after being 'convinced', that seems more like plain rape to me.
losing to the (body part of your choice goes here) is basically a porn trope all its own
instant_loss_2koma, this is just the sort of concept that naturally fits with species/race foci.
lafcadio said:
Kekitopu's Bombun actually has a human fetish, Hitoner is about a human among furries, Cavemanon Studios is basically nothing but this, and some other media lend themselves well to this because their character dynamics force certain characters to only be romantically involved with humans: Fire Emblem units who are basically a single-gender species until they have a child, Rune Factory "monster" spouses, token nonhumans who are player-sexual in a game where the player can only be a human, etc.
Though fetish tags aren't about characters having a fetish, or non-humans that just like humans, or human/non-human pairings. It would be like tagging watersports (a urine fetish) because a character is known to like it, or because a character states they like it, or because an artist focuses on it, rather than because a character is actively enjoying it.
By TWYS, a human must be visibly fetishized in the image for a human_fetish tag to be valid, not a creator intending the work for people who are into the fetish. Looking at a random handful of posts tagged human_fetish, it seems very subjective and quite often based on the vibes a tagger gets (e.g. post #6054696 reads to me like Loona's annoyed at a particular human, who she secretly finds attractive, nothing about a human fetish; or post #5868407 where a rabbit's inviting an unseen human to sex, not fetishizing humans specifically; or post #5887672 where she just wants "strong warrior seed", the guy just happens to be a human). The element that shows up most often (but certainly not universal) seems be a spade tattoo with either an H or BHC in it, which would be completely reasonable to have as its own tag, but inferring more beyond that is a stretch, IMO.
I'll again point to zoophilia/"feral fetish" being aliased away because the concept is too broad and subjective for TWYS to effectively work, even though there are characters into them and there are artists that specifically make art for non-ferals being into ferals, and rely more on tags for what we actually see (like bestiality, a pawprint_tattoo, or other visual elements). We should do the same here.
watsit said:
Though fetish tags aren't about characters having a fetish, or non-humans that just like humans, or human/non-human pairings. It would be like tagging watersports (a urine fetish) because a character is known to like it, or because a character states they like it, or because an artist focuses on it, rather than because a character is actively enjoying it.By TWYS, a human must be visibly fetishized in the image for a human_fetish tag to be valid, not a creator intending the work for people who are into the fetish. Looking at a random handful of posts tagged human_fetish, it seems very subjective and quite often based on the vibes a tagger gets (e.g. post #6054696 reads to me like Loona's annoyed at a particular human, who she secretly finds attractive, nothing about a human fetish; or post #5868407 where a rabbit's inviting an unseen human to sex, not fetishizing humans specifically; or post #5887672 where she just wants "strong warrior seed", the guy just happens to be a human). The element that shows up most often (but certainly not universal) seems be a spade tattoo with either an H or BHC in it, which would be completely reasonable to have as its own tag, but inferring more beyond that is a stretch, IMO.
I'll again point to zoophilia/"feral fetish" being aliased away because the concept is too broad and subjective for TWYS to effectively work, even though there are characters into them and there are artists that specifically make art for non-ferals being into ferals, and rely more on tags for what we actually see (like bestiality, a pawprint_tattoo, or other visual elements). We should do the same here.
I agree entirely that these posts do not meet the standards of TWYS, in most posts tagged "human_fetish" at best the fetish is either possibly implied or stated through dialogue, which generally should not be considered when tagging general tags, but still when I and I think most users search "human_fetish" we expect to see posts like these, as a tag that cannot usually be confirmed visually, I think it should be made a lore tag.
