Implicating lactating → milk
Link to implication

Reason:

image cannot be tagged as lactating if milk is not present.

What if they're lactating something that isn't milk?

Kaeetayel said:
What if they're lactating something that isn't milk?

i dont believe that should be tagged as lactating

+1 Sure why not.

Mutisija said:
i dont believe that should be tagged as lactating

I disagree.
post #845770 This is still lactation. We don't have another tag for it, after all.

Furrin_Gok said:
I disagree.
post #845770 This is still lactation. We don't have another tag for it, after all.

well thats a bad example because that image should not be tagged as lactating even if it included other substances than milk because the honey does not even appear to be coming from her breasts. if it was coming from her breasts, the droplets would only be on nipple, not all over the breast. it seems more like she has just smeared it on her breast or dipped the breast in honey

what if they're lactating through their shirt

Kaeetayel said:
What if they're lactating something that isn't milk?

Lactating literally means ´producing milk´. If it's some other substance, then can it really be tagged as lactation?

Genjar said:
Lactating literally means ´producing milk´. If it's some other substance, then can it really be tagged as lactation?

What about this... um, thing?
post #822420

Definitely true that "lactating" is intrinsically linked to "milk"; The base word is like Lactate or Lactose or something, which are both milk related. This is kind of going to a similar place that the pegging discussion went with trying to use an implied general meaning of the word to cover a wider range of stuff.

I don't think this one presents as odd of a logical problem to use in a general sense as pegging though, because I think most people would probably easily be able to accept and follow the implication that "character both producing and excreting any fluid substance from their mammary glands = lactation", even if it's not technically correct, without disturbing their normal expectations/search habits.

Though, If we wanted to be able to make the distinction between the production of milk and other substances while maintaining technical accuracy with lactation specifically for milk, we could probably do something like creating a tag to use alongside or in place of lactation that would imply non-normal lactation, like "non-milk_lactation" or "abnormal_lactation". That would also have the added benefit of not creating 30 tags with only 1 or 2 uses for every form of "lactating_<substance>"

Making new obscure tags just to make an implication seems like something that's bound to cause issues in the long run. I'd rather keep the tags simple and go without the implication.

parasprite said:
Making new obscure tags just to make an implication seems like something that's bound to cause issues in the long run. I'd rather keep the tags simple and go without the implication.

aurel said:
Who the fuck is going to ever search the 'milk' tag anyway?

@lactate only melk side: post #206490
(and bee-lactating search in general)

Such implication would only cause truoble.

ffs, that pic looks like she is lactating urine. And now all others look to me as if they are lactating semen... Oh .. What of dicknipples? Is that milk too?

Best to keep lactation as "some liquid going out from nipples". Its in line with furry logic.

Denied for these reasons. As mentioned, it might work, but it might also not.

aurel said:
Who the fuck is going to ever search the 'milk' tag anyway?

Well, if we actually start tagging it right, lactating milk should give the milk-only results for those who fine honey (and other liquids) lactation disturbing.