Are the bad anatomy related tags really meaningful to a guy who draws hyper fetishes all the time?
If an artist is going to pretend that internal organs don't exist and you can simply jam objects of any given size into a vagina without consequence, then yeah, it's getting tagged bad anatomy so people who don't want to see that sort of thing can add it to their blacklists. It doesn't really matter what the artist draws all the time, because tags should apply to all artists equally.
If an artist is going to pretend that internal organs don't exist and you can simply jam objects of any given size into a vagina without consequence, then yeah, it's getting tagged bad anatomy so people who don't want to see that sort of thing can add it to their blacklists. It doesn't really matter what the artist draws all the time, because tags should apply to all artists equally.
I meant it more like these are the common fetish kind of things that this site has tags for-- large_insertion, stomach_bulge-- and has artists like Sinensian who dedicate to drawing them. I was more under the impression that bad_anatomy encompasses pictures where the artist just sucked; it doesn't seem right to use it on 'stylistic bad' pictures like this one, or else the tag surely belong on all pictures where the wiki page even admits to being impossible, like cervical_penetration, nipple_penetration, all_the_way_through, the ones where you can't tell if it's supposed to be stomach_bulge or pregnant, and so on.
I meant it more like these are the common fetish kind of things that this site has tags for-- large_insertion, stomach_bulge-- and has artists like Sinensian who dedicate to drawing them. I was more under the impression that bad_anatomy encompasses pictures where the artist just sucked; it doesn't seem right to use it on 'stylistic bad' pictures like this one, or else the tag surely belong on all pictures where the wiki page even admits to being impossible, like cervical_penetration, nipple_penetration, all_the_way_through, the ones where you can't tell if it's supposed to be stomach_bulge or pregnant, and so on.
Bad_anatomy isn't necessarily intended to condemn the quality of an artist's work; the tag's definition is simply "image that is drawn anatomically incorrect" without any implied judgment. It's simply stating that, as a matter of fact, the image depicts bodies that cannot possibly be true-to-life, which is clearly the case with this image. Also note that bad_anatomy is automatically implicated by anatomical_nonsense, which is the tag of choice for images where it's obvious that the artist deliberately exaggeratedproportionsforeffect, as well as similarly exaggerated large insertions where the artist clearly ignored basic human physiology, like post #1834665.
The thoughts exchanged in that eight year-old forum thread you dredged up date from a time when it was more acceptable to use tags (like the long-gone poorly_drawn tag) to express subjective opinions about image quality. Nowadays, if the artist clearly did a bad job, we just flag the post for deletion. It's been suggested much more recently that tags like bad_anatomy should be renamed to something more objective to clarify that they shouldn't be perceived as an attack on the artist. That effort stalled, probably because of the sheer amount of work it would take to re-tag everything, but it's still an idea worth pursuing.
As for other anatomically impossible fetish concepts like nipple_penetration that aren't presently tagged bad_anatomy, that's another remnant of outdated views of this tag. If the matter were revisited again today, I suspect that things would turn out differently.
Leave a comment