Implicating cum_cannon → cumshot
Link to implication

Reason:

EDIT: The tag implication cum_cannon -> cumshot (forum #212183) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Bump. +1

There is also cum_hose. Should these be nested? Like we could make it so that cum_cannon implies -> cum_hose which then implies -> cumshot? It wouldn't be the first time we've created a nested chain of implications for the range of sizes for something. Any thoughts?

furrypickle said:
There is also cum_hose. Should these be nested? Like we could make it so that cum_cannon implies -> cum_hose which then implies -> cumshot? It wouldn't be the first time we've created a nested chain of implications for the range of sizes for something. Any thoughts?

I honestly don’t understand the difference between cum_cannon and cum_hose.

At first I thought cum_hose meant an ‘excessive’ cumshot and cum_cannon a much more extreme (almost explosive) version of the former, but when I look at the posts (cum_hose and cum_cannon), I fail to see a difference between the two tags.

zenith-pendragon said:
I honestly don’t understand the difference between cum_cannon and cum_hose.

At first I thought cum_hose meant an ‘excessive’ cumshot and cum_cannon a much more extreme (almost explosive) version of the former, but when I look at the posts (cum_hose and cum_cannon), I fail to see a difference between the two tags.

Hmmm, there is definitely a lot of overlap in usage. I could go for aliasing one to the other, and then implicating the kept tag to -> cumshot . Do we have a preference for cum_cannon vs cum_hose?

I would normally favor the less extreme version, since it might be more flexible and apply to more of a range. And because the more extreme often is more limited. So as a rule of thumb, that's often a decent approach. That would mean keeping 'cum_hose' .

But in this case, I think 'cum_hose' only makes sense in the context of 'cum_cannon' also existing, so you can see the pattern. But by itself, 'cum_hose' sounds a bit confusing, almost like it would be related to cum inflation, or hoses full of cum, etc.

So I think maybe cum_cannon might be the better of the two names to keep for it. Less likely to be confused or taken literally.

Although I'm not married to it, if someone thinks of a better approach for this one.

The tag implication cum_cannon -> cumshot (forum #212183) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.