I've been looking into this lately and more and more it seems like a logical thing to do. I'd like to talk about it to see what you guys think about this.

We don't use anal_sex or vaginal_sex (which have been aliased to *_penetration) and for all practical purposes, oral_sex and oral are interchangable. They don't count for rimming (for whatever reason) and the auto* tags (because they are masturbation, not sex), but it doesn't really serve much of a purpose beyond that.

Current implications:

• oral (38500 posts) - oral_sex, autocunnilingus, autofellatio, cunnilingus, rimming, fellatio, deep_throat, spitroast
• oral_sex (30000 posts) - cunnilingus, fellatio, forced_oral, 69

Notable inconsistencies:

• The wiki has mentioned that rimming counted under oral_sex since mid-2011, even though it only ever implied oral.
• spitroast implies oral, but technically it should imply oral_sex instead
• forced_oral implies oral_sex, not oral (according to the implications, rimming doesn't count as oral_sex but forcing someone to rim is logically going to be tagged forced_oral because of the name)

Missing implciations:

• tonguejob -> fellatio (as far as I know, this is how it's used)
• Edit: This should probably just be implicated to oral.
• autorimming -> anal, oral (autocunnilingus implies oral already)
• autocunnilingus -> vaginal
• all_three_filled -> vaginal, anal, oral (or possibly vaginal_penetration and anal_penetration instead, the oral part could be a dildo so that wouldn't work)

Other thoughts:

• I don't know if rimming should imply sex.
• Amusingly enough, oral_sex implies sex but vaginal_penetration doesn't. I know this is partially because vaginal_insertion implies vaginal_penetration, but it's still amusing to me.

parasprite said:
Missing implciations:

• tonguejob -> fellatio (as far as I know, this is how it's used)

I don't think all of those quite fit under the fellatio tag, at least not by the current wiki definition.

post #60037

Genjar said:
I don't think all of those quite fit under the fellatio tag, at least not by the current wiki definition.

post #60037

I'll be honest, I really don't like the way that I wrote that. Looking back at the history, it seems that instead of simply rewording it, I ended up actually changing the definition to "a blowjob". It should probably be established how broad of a definition we want to give this, and whether the older definition was actually better for our purposes. If you only look at the implications, it seems as though fellatio only officially means "blowjob".

The dictionary definition for fellatio is simple, it's just "oral stimulation of the penis", however it's obvious that this definition serves different purposes than ours and definitely didn't take things like tonguejobs into consideration.

Any thoughts on this?

parasprite said:
I'll be honest, I really don't like the way that I wrote that. Looking back at the history, it seems that instead of simply rewording it, I ended up actually changing the definition to "a blowjob". It should probably be established how broad of a definition we want to give this, and whether the older definition was actually better for our purposes. If you only look at the implications, it seems as though fellatio only officially means "blowjob".

The dictionary definition for fellatio is simple, it's just "oral stimulation of the penis", however it's obvious that this definition serves different purposes than ours and definitely didn't take things like tonguejobs into consideration.

Any thoughts on this?

Fellatio is defined as the stimulation of the penis and/or scrotum using the mouth and/or throat. It's taken from the word fellāre which means suck.

So I think a post showing a character licking the penis while clearly giving a blowjob could be classed as fellatio but since a tonguejob uses the tongue only I think we should keep it as it's own tag.

Looking over it all in depth, I think you're right. Just like anal_sex and vaginal_sex were carefully aliased away ages ago, because it was unneeded to keep both versions of those tags.

So I've approved:

aliasing oral_sex to --> oral
Moved all the existing implications and aliases over to oral. Well, except for the implication oral_sex had to --> sex. Because oral is slightly broader and includes things like types of masturbation which we don't count as sex.

Also, since oral_sex had in turn been implicated to sex, I made sure everything which used to get the sex tag from the implication chain with oral_sex is now implicated to sex directly.

I also approved additional implications of:

autorimming to -> anal (regular rimming already implies anal)
autorimming to --> oral (autocunnilingus implies oral already)
autocunnilingus to -> vaginal (regular cunnilingus implies vaginal already)
all_three_filled to -> vaginal, anal, oral and to sex (I didn't implicate it to the penetration versions of these tags, because any of those orifices could be filled with either a penis or a sex_toy, so the implications will have to accommodate both options)

These should standardize things considerably.

furrypickle said:
Awesome stuff.

It's neat watching the tag counter for oral sex go down when you refresh the page over and over again. link It's like I can feel the computer processing it.

Good work, I'll go through the wikis now then.

all_three_filled to -> vaginal, anal, oral and to sex (I didn't implicate it to the penetration versions of these tags, because any of those orifices could be filled with either a penis or a sex_toy, so the implications will have to accommodate both options)

What if all three are filled with sex toys? A quick search suggests that we don't have anything like that yet, but I'm sure I've seen that situation somewhere.

Snowy said:
What if all three are filled with sex toys? A quick search suggests that we don't have anything like that yet, but I'm sure I've seen that situation somewhere.

Like this?

post #400620

Yes, like that.

furrypickle said:
all_three_filled to -> vaginal, anal, oral and to sex (I didn't implicate it to the penetration versions of these tags, because any of those orifices could be filled with either a penis or a sex_toy, so the implications will have to accommodate both options)

Sex toys are insertions, which imply penetration anyways. However, there is fingering/fisting as well.

Snowy said:
What if all three are filled with sex toys? A quick search suggests that we don't have anything like that yet, but I'm sure I've seen that situation somewhere.

This is a pretty new tag and the implications seem set up to be able to include situations like the one Just Another Dragon posted above, so I don't see why it wouldn't include that. However, I don't know of a tag that is that specific to sex toys. If we did, it would be under one of the *insertion tags probably.

As for digging some up (since they probably aren't tagged under all_three_filled yet), you might be able to pull a few out with anal vaginal oral triple_penetration sex_toy -penis (or the penetration/insertion versions of those) or something similar.

I brought that up because a situation like that would fall under all_three_filled but would not count as sex, which is a problem when all_three_filled implies sex.

Snowy said:
I brought that up because a situation like that would fall under all_three_filled but would not count as sex, which is a problem when all_three_filled implies sex.

I can't argue with that, I just plain missed that possible option and I don't think such an instance had been tagged yet when I looked through it. I'm glad you brought it up though. Even though it's gonna be rare to have all_three_filled with all of them being sex toys or objects, it still very much worth factoring in. So, implication of all_three_filled to --> sex is deleted. We'll just have to tag the ones that are sex manually in the future instead.

Most (if not all) of those will get the sex tag from the implications (fellatio, etc). So it's probably not something that'll need to be checked often.