A question about "males only"

Hey!  
From what I understand males only is supposed to be used in the same way as females only for male characters, specifically that it shouldn’t be used when the males are sexually interacting with each other since that would instead just be tagged as “gay”. If that’s the case would it be possible to adjust the disclaimer in the tag description in a similar fashion to “females only” to represent that? Like its counterpart it often (I’d even say mostly) doesn’t get used in the way it seems to be intended and it would be nice to have something definitive to point at when people re-add the tag even though it was removed multiple times.

Swore it had that already. Well, anyway, added.
 
And also a lot of people probably re-add the tag as they don’t know how to filter. That’s no excuse tho, just makes it worse. But I hope this helps.

@Labra  
What about if an image has two stallions fucking while a mare watches? Wouldn’t that also be tagged as gay?

@Background Pony #396F  
Yes, it’s called gay in front of girls.

@LightningBolt  
I also see how that tag is probably being misapplied to threesomes and other group sex activities. Sigh.

@LightningBolt  
It’s being used as a catch-all for any image with only male characters, really. It usually just gets used alongside gay when those posts should actually just be tagged as gay. Some people have even started using it instead of solo male for some reason. I’d go as far as to say that of all the images tagged with males only it only actually applies in maybe 20% of cases, probably even far less.
 
At this point it’s a cycle. People started using it in the non-intended way and now those images make up the majority of the content under this tag which, in turn, leads to even more people using it like that because they see all those posts that shouldn’t even be there in the first place and just roll with it. At least that’s what I could gather from some of the DMs I’ve sent (or received) after I removed that tag only for it to be re-added again. I mean I can’t blame them since I would’ve also assumed males only was just an umbrella term for images featuring only male characters if it wasn’t for the tag description and, granted, it was a bit too ambiguous before, but I get the feeling that a lot of people don’t read those anyway.
 
I’ve been doing clean-up on new images for a few months now, even before you changed the description (Thanks for that by the way, that was really fast!) and after you did I started going a bit further back earlier today but I’d say there’s probably well over 2000 posts that would need “scrubbing” and that could take me quite a while to say the least. And from what I can tell females only seems to have a similar problem.

@Labra  
Ah, fun. I’ve been meaning to clean these up too but I haven’t had the time to spend looking at each image as it’s not easy to do quickly.

Is there any way to search for images that only include male characters, regardless of what those males are doing? Something like males only OR (gay AND NOT gay in front of girls) seems needlessly messy, and it still doesn’t work because of images like >>2608577.

@Background Pony #396F  
Do -female, -ambiguous gender  
^ In addition to whatever else you want to search for.

@Background Pony #396F  
This is my best attempt, barring untagged stuff.

Glad this thread was here. I spotted it whilst incorrectly updating tags :x