Oh there are just so many things wrong here.
Posted under General
As much as it might not be to the average user's taste, this is actually no different than any other "hey guys, what about using new_tag for X" thread we have. I don't see any reason not to honour it (not that I upload or tag many penises, big or otherwise).
Edit: Btw, I edited your post to link to the wiki page, this is the good form to use when discussing specific tags. And for future reference, you don't really need to tell us you're gay. It doesn't change anything, and much like personal fetishes falls into the TMI category.
OK, and now I've read the wiki page, could you explain what use is tagging penises "within the realms of reality"? Clearly all the futa monster cock isn't, so if that's what you want to distinguish from the plausible sizes, it completely doesn't work. For that you'd need something similar to the breast size scale we have, with large vs. huge. You can just as well call it monster_cock, this is probably the best way to describe the unholy cocks of doom most futa tend to wield.
We should probably change it to large_penis to be consistent with the other large_* tags.
EDIT: If that's the case, then a penis -huge_penis search would probably work well.
葉月 said:
The OP seemed to imply to me that you could want to search for particularly big penises without necessarily wanting to see the humongous ones. Which sounds sensible.
Indeed. My thing is I like them to look real and beautiful. I'm not sure how to sum that up in a tag, but generally huge, nice looking cocks are within my taste.
Some of the ways even the realistically-monstrous cocks are drawn are just a turn-off, where they share almost the same girth pattern as a football (thickest in the middle, large variance).
Regardless of what you look for, you need to come up with a workable tagging scheme for it. Now, is all of the following true?
If so, what you need to do is to provide the following:
If you do that and it's deemed generally reasonable and understandable enough, then you can put the definitions in the wiki and start using the newly introduced tags. Is that clear?
No point coining monster_cock when there is already gigantic_penis to go along with gigantic_breasts, both of which are generally ToS violating.
If we are going to introduce a new large_penis tag, we need at least a rough rule of thumb for grading them, as we do in forum #36999 for breasts. It may just be that I pay less attention, but I suspect this is harder in this case because you typically see less variation here.
If a larger-than-normal pen0r tag is to be put to use, then perhaps we should follow the breasts tagging scheme of large_ and huge_ (perhaps with a monster_cock alias for teh lulz, unless we want to attribute that to actually monstrous cocks, such as those with spikes). We'd also need to figure if small_ or tiny_ would be preferred as the equivalent of flat_chest, eh?
Walde also brought up penises with those bulgy proportions, the one that either look like footballs or look like they grew around one. What would be an appropo tag for that? bulgy_penis?
Shinjidude said:
No point coining monster_cock when there is already gigantic_penis to go along with gigantic_breasts, both of which are generally ToS violating.
Ah, I wasn't aware. Gigantic it is then.
T5J8F8 said:
We'd also need to figure if small_ or tiny_ would be preferred as the equivalent of flat_chest, eh?
We have little_penis already, though that has distinctly shota connotations. But the wiki says it's not supposed to be limited to just that, so this we have covered already. Presumably small_penis should be aliased.
monster cock should apply to like... barbed, tenctacled, or otherwise actually monstrous penises. If anything.
Granola said:
I really don't want to ask but...
..
How big does a penis have to be to warrant this tag.EDIT: it just seems to me like a subjective tag like epic.
That's the question other people are asking above, too. But it's different than a purely subjective tag -- there's some subjectivity around the edges for long_hair vs. very_long_hair, or for the breast-size tags, but they still serve some purpose, since they're still trying to describe something which can have clear-cut cases as opposed to, say, hotness or epicness. It's something you can at least theoretically have rules for.
Anyway, in some ways it's easier to define than the breast-size tags, because there is less variation here in the real world. A penis that is obviously too big for any human to have would be huge_penis; one that's on the large scale of reasonable human size would just be big.
And in any case we probably need a tag for grotesquely oversized ones the same way we do for breasts, so they can be tagged as potential ToS violations (and those few that are kept anyway can be clearly-marked so people who hate them can avoid them.)
As I recall it, 13-18 cm is "average" (penis). 19-30 is "large" (large_penis). Anything above approaches the limits of human anatomy (and our ToS). Anything below is probably small_penis.
I think we still need to figure out a good rule of thumb though.
For breasts we have:
For hair we have:
for penises we have:
I'm not sure where the line between just plain penis and large_penis would be. It's also a lot harder to tag something based on inches or centimeters rather than something measured in heads.
As for the alias, I'd support it in order to be consistent with the breast scale.