[X] My Assistant

CODE

description=Nudity or sexual activities often taking place in non-private locations with a risk of being witnessed by non-participants. Also any blatant exposure to anyone besides an intimate partner.

Discuss and whatnot.

I'm in favor of this loosening of the definition. I think to some degree this is already how this tag is tagged. So if anything this would be updating it to be inline with peoples expectations.

That being said what would be considered a 'private' location? Anywhere in a house?

I don't know if that matters to much tbh because even if a location is considered private the blatent line seems to take care of any issues.

For example with http://ehentaihip.com/g/845985/6f01f92929/ some people might consider the classroom to be 'private' but it would still be exhibitionism as it's blatent exposure.

Objection; all the galleries will be taggable as long as the sex scene doesn't happen in a house. Location is always a bad content for any tags, can we have other option?

This post has been edited by Miles Edgeworth: Apr 30 2019, 22:23

non-private location

Fail if somebody is greeting people at the door naked on purpose, or let others see/hear stuff through (open?) windows on purpose.
Conclusion: location is probably not relevant enough to be part of the definition.

I would think the important part in exhibitionism is that the exposure would be made on purpose (by the exhibitionist(s) will or somebody/something forcing him/her/them to do it), and that the one exposed may believe there's a chance to be seen (heard may work too in some cases).

description=Nudity or sexual activities often taking place in non-private locations with a risk of being witnessed by non-participants. Also any blatant exposure to anyone besides an intimate partner.

Sounds better without the location.

-

Oh, rethinking about it, the "risk of being witnessed" [exhibitionism] and "sex acts... which goes unseen" [hidden sex], aren't prone to confusion?

Exhibitionism: Being nude or engaged in sexual acts blatantly exposed to non-participants or with a risk of being witnessed.
Note: Not to be tagged if the intimate partner is the only one observing.

This post has been edited by SMiyano: May 1 2019, 06:19

Fail if somebody is greeting people at the door naked on purpose, or let others see/hear stuff through (open?)

No it wouldn't. "Also any blatant exposure to anyone besides an intimate partner." would cover that.

No it wouldn't. "Also any blatant exposure to anyone besides an intimate partner." would cover that.

So "also" means "or" here?
It doesn't mean the 2nd sentence should apply "in addition" (synonym of "also") to the first?

(I am sure most people are aware this is a split of the discussion here)

I concur that location is not needed. For example, some stories have a sister or a roommate or such walking naked in their house, arousing their brother or other roomates or such. IMHO that's exhibitionism too. So I prefer SMiyano's revised def.

That leaves "with a risk of being witnessed" which suggests risking. But what about blatant sex in front of others? The current def may suggest that blatant exposure is ok, but sex is only exhibitionism if it's a risk, not blatant. So here's my revised def:

CODE

description=Nudity or sexual activities involving a risk of being witnessed by non-participants or blatantly exposed to anyone who is not one's intimate partner.

Also needs to address this part: "Gender: The gender of the one performing the exposed nude or sexual activities determines if the tag is placed in the female or male namespace." (current). What if the group (f/m) is exposing themselves? Tag both male and female separately?

One final thought: exposing yourself to animals or monsters or such - yay or nay?

This post has been edited by Red_Piotrus: May 2 2019, 08:25

So "also" means "or" here?
It doesn't mean the 2nd sentence should apply "in addition" (synonym of "also") to the first?

In this context it would be an "or". It should be read as "Also (applies to any situation where) any blatant exposure to anyone besides an intimate partner." If it was meant to be in addition it should start with "as well as blatant..."

I concur that location is not needed. For example, some stories have a sister or a roommate or such walking naked in their house, arousing their brother or other roomates or such. IMHO that's exhibitionism too. So I prefer SMiyano's revised def.

That leaves "with a risk of being witnessed" which suggests risking. But what about blatant sex in front of others? The current def may suggest that blatant exposure is ok, but sex is only exhibitionism if it's a risk, not blatant. So here's my revised def:

CODE

description=Nudity or sexual activities involving a risk of being witnessed by non-participants or blatantly exposed to anyone who is not one's intimate partner.

I think it's slightly clearer than the existing one but other than that there's no real difference. The word often means that the non-private location isn't a requirement and is instead a hint to a user reading it how it should be tagged.

Also needs to address this part: "Gender: The gender of the one performing the exposed nude or sexual activities determines if the tag is placed in the female or male namespace." (current). What if the group (f/m) is exposing themselves? Tag both male and female separately?

Tag on both as it is currently.

One final thought: exposing yourself to animals or monsters or such - yay or nay?

Nay. Should only apply to humans and furries.

CODE

description=Nudity or sexual activities involving a risk of being witnessed by non-participants or blatantly exposed to anyone who is not one's intimate partner.

This. I think it's fine.

Nay. Should only apply to humans and furries.

As long as the non-participant is sentient, orcs and elves should be OK, specially orcs, we must fight for their rights to observe/encourage sexual acts occurring in their immediate presence.

I'm more concerned about existing exhibitionism tags that will have to be retagged over the next 10 years (and counting) than the presence rule.

If the proposed changes aren't an issue, why not.

I'm more concerned about existing exhibitionism tags that will have to be retagged over the next 10 years (and counting) than the presence rule.

If the proposed changes aren't an issue, why not.

As it stands this only loosens the tag to allow more stuff to qualify for it. At least that's how I see it. So anything that has already qualified for the tag should continue to qualify. And if that isn't the case then we need to adapt the definition to make it the case.

I've always found the lack of exclusion note that rape should not be included kinda weird, maybe it's just how I've always thought people like exhibitionism to be at least kinda consensual, and it's the risk of getting caught that stir people up.
This new definition will make a lot of rape content qualify even more then it did with the old definition.

I've always found the lack of exclusion note that rape should not be included kinda weird, maybe it's just how I've always thought people like exhibitionism to be at least kinda consensual, and it's the risk of getting caught that stir people up.
This new definition will make a lot of rape content qualify even more then it did with the old definition.

On Red thread (Observer/watching), there was some discussion on the consent aspect, @uareader also makes a mentions here. But I believe that's why "humiliation" exists.

Any forced exhibitionism/public disgrace would be 100% humiliation.

Any forced exhibitionism/public disgrace would be 100% humiliation.

Not at all, you need a audience to make humiliation valid while exhibitionism doesn't required the person to be seen. Many ppls do not about this and blindly tagged it in many galleries.

I've always found the lack of exclusion note that rape should not be included kinda weird, maybe it's just how I've always thought people like exhibitionism to be at least kinda consensual, and it's the risk of getting caught that stir people up.
This new definition will make a lot of rape content qualify even more then it did with the old definition.

Yeah that's an interesting point. For example if someone is getting raped in a park at night, but the work is about just raping them then it shouldn't count as exhibitionism as it's not really about that even though they're naked in a public location.

But if there's talk of someone coming along. Or wouldn't it be terrible if someone showed up, then maybe?

Rape shouldn't be mutually exclusive but most cases probably shouldn't qualify.

Holding off until an agreement on non-consensual acts is reached.

As long as the non-participant is sentient

Sapient.

Hm, agree with both Binglo and Cipher here. Rape and exhibitionism may coexist but community has to ensure random public rape doesn't get tagged with exhibitionism either -- unless exhibitionism-related concerns clearly show up or that's the intent.

Rape shouldn't be mutually exclusive but most cases probably shouldn't qualify.

+1.

So something along the lines of "not to be tagged on unwilling content as long as public exposure isn't brought up"?

Also when I start thinking about this, other tags have some pretty serious overlap, for example "public use" should also have some major content overlap, which again doesn't really align with at least what I imagine people with a exhibitionist fetish is looking for.

I think only consensual and blackmailed exhibitionism should qualify. Rape or public use could be paired with humiliation or "watch" in future if approved.