Men also have lips and may wear lipstick, so unfortunately there's no clear implied_yuri here.

ElGranFracaso said:

Men also have lips and may wear lipstick, so unfortunately there's no clear implied_yuri here.

If there's 99% possibility of those kiss marks being left by a girl, would you dismiss the chance of that happening over the 1% chance it was left by a guy wearing lipstick? The rule is 'tag what you see' and not 'tag what you thought'.

That, and the artist has history of drawing 100% yuri art. That justifies using implied_yuri tag on this one.

Rathurue said:

If there's 99% possibility of those kiss marks being left by a girl, would you dismiss the chance of that happening over the 1% chance it was left by a guy wearing lipstick? The rule is 'tag what you see' and not 'tag what you thought'.

That, and the artist has history of drawing 100% yuri art. That justifies using implied_yuri tag on this one.

Where did you find the data to calculate that possibility? I think it's better not to make stuff up when tagging. So yes, tag what you see. What do you see in this image that clearly implies that a woman made those lip prints? There is only one person in this image and no indication of the gender of whomever made the lip prints. Artist history really makes very little difference in this case, as plenty of artists draw occasional exceptions to their norms.

ElGranFracaso said:

Where did you find the data to calculate that possibility? I think it's better not to make stuff up when tagging. So yes, tag what you see. What do you see in this image that clearly implies that a woman made those lip prints? There is only one person in this image and no indication of the gender of whomever made the lip prints. Artist history really makes very little difference in this case, as plenty of artists draw occasional exceptions to their norms.

So by that logic, post #3645061, #3648696, #3647495 and so on by this artist has possibility of those kissmarks made by a male? You refused to believe that those marks are made by another woman by assumption of a male, wearing lipstick, made those, under another assumption that the artist does any hetero content.

Why don't you help this community by ascertaining those assumptions, say, by asking the artist via her twitter if that's the case? We do have a direct link to it, on the source.

Rathurue said:

So by that logic, post #3645061, #3648696, #3647495 and so on by this artist has possibility of those kissmarks made by a male? You refused to believe that those marks are made by another woman by assumption of a male, wearing lipstick, made those, under another assumption that the artist does any hetero content.

Why don't you help this community by ascertaining those assumptions, say, by asking the artist via her twitter if that's the case? We do have a direct link to it, on the source.

Who cares who made the lip prints? Lips come standard on all models of human. Gender does not. I'm not assuming that anyone kissed this butt. Could be that someone smeared lipstick on a pair of wax lips and stamped them on this butt. It could be a birthmark that just happens to look like lip prints. Or some androgyne could have kissed them cheeks. The supposed kisser is not in the image.

If the artist said "a woman kissed this woman's butt" in regard to this image and you dropped the link to prove it, there'd be justification for the implied_yuri tag. Until then, there's none. But the burden of proof is yours If you want the tag on it. You're more than welcome to do the work to find out.