Implicating stand_and_carry_position → cradling
Link to implication

Reason:

Y.

Should at least give a reason. =/

If we go strictly by the wiki definition, this would work.
But wouldn't something like lifting or carrying be more obvious tag for it?

As I read it, cradling and carrying are formally separated in their wiki definition (carrying implies movement, cradling implies no movement, at least if what's being carried is a person).

Cradling is a lot clearer and more used than than lifting, since the latter is currently used indiscriminately for stuff that could/should be cradling and people lifting objects (e.g. post #544945 or post #531684).

Not sure, because of things like: post #499479

So the first question is: are images like that one still considered to be stand_and_carry even though their full weight is being held by the penis instead of by cradling?
Because either images like that aren't actually meant to be tagged with stand_and_carry so this implication will work after the tag is cleaned.
Or that is a form of stand_and_carry and this implication won't work because the position doesn't always require cradling. This might be true considering some images under there are actually propped up against_wall instead. Though might it be argued those are simply mistagged?
Or cradling is broader than I thought and includes when someone is being carried by impalement. I kind of doubt that last option though.

Also, not sure if an implication works because of images like this:

post #480441

Which runs into issues with the wiki for cradling specifying that they need to be of similar size. While I am not sure that part of the wiki should even read like that in any case (I think that wording was intended to rule out images with someone holding-a-micro. But it might need reworking to not rule out size_difference? Or is it supposed to rule out size_difference? Because it's often used regardless.) In any case, it definitely factors into whether or not these two tags are implicatable.

Also, what is the better way to tag images like this?:
post #392321

Because I can't blame someone for tagging it with stand_and_carry but it's obviously not using it to have sex. And stand_and_carry is a sex position so that distinction is kind of important.

Do we have other tags established for either wrapping legs around another person or for hanging off of/holding onto another person like that? We probably should. I know a ton of images where it was there but no one seemed to know how to tag it, so it didn't get tagged.

furrypickle said:
Which runs into issues with the wiki for cradling specifying that they need to be of similar size. While I am not sure that part of the wiki should even read like that in any case (I think that wording was intended to rule out images with someone holding-a-micro. But it might need reworking to not rule out size_difference? Or is it supposed to rule out size_difference? Because it's often used regardless.) In any case, it definitely factors into whether or not these two tags are implicatable.

Well... the wiki also specifies "... , or by one character standing on the other. " which is obviously not what cradling is (using the dictionary definition or its usage here). Tbh, that alone makes me question the whole wiki.

parasprite said:
Well... the wiki also specifies "... , or by one character standing on the other. " which is obviously not what cradling is (using the dictionary definition or its usage here). Tbh, that alone makes me question the whole wiki.

That wiki always seemed unclear and a little confusing to me, but I was never sure if that was just me so I never tried to fix it. I guess it wasn't just me after all. It probably should have a rewrite.

Also, I keep editing my forum post, because I found yet another concern related to some images which were ending up under stand_and_carry but probably shouldn't have been.

Yep, the cradling wiki entry could use some clarification. I never figured out how to tag that, myself.

Is cradling even the proper term for it? I've never heard anyone use that word for anything older than babies. As I said before, I'd be more inclined to tag the activity as carrying (which matches the position name).

Anyway, as furrypickle pointed out, stand_and_carry_position gets tagged for wide variety of images. Mostly because we have no other tags.

But I have no idea what images such as...
post #499479
...should be tagged as. Obviously there's no real life equivalent.

I'd almost be for aliasing cradling to carrying because I find the term to be somewhat confusing in reference to what is mostly furry porn. The distinction between whether or not they are moving seems completely arbitrary to me, a case where they are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Even more when you consider that it directly contradicts stand_and_carry_position, because most of the time they are obviously not going to be walking around most of the time.

+1

memeboy said:
+1

Wow, way to necropost, m8. >.<

ShylokVakarian said:
Wow, way to necropost, m8. >.<

What's the better thing to do then? Leave this implication to never be further discussed? Create a new post about the exact same thing?

ShylokVakarian said:
Wow, way to necropost, m8. >.<

Necroposting stuff like this is fine as long as it isn't disruptive.

parasprite said:
Necroposting stuff like this is fine as long as it isn't disruptive.

Sorry, I've been taught by the rest of the internet that necroposting is only okay if it's on topic and contributes to the thread. "+1" is not exactly a contribution.

Tuvalu said:
What's the better thing to do then? Leave this implication to never be further discussed? Create a new post about the exact same thing?

Actually, yes. With a link to the original thread.

parasprite said:
Necroposting stuff like this is fine as long as it isn't disruptive.

+1

Amusingly, nowadays I prefer to use lifted for that, though I suspect cradling is still better in most cases.

furrypickle said:
+1

In all seriousness though, Shylock, reviving an older thread is ok on here if it was site business (like tags) that never got finished. Sometimes creating a new thread just to say "hey look at this other old thread" is just unnecessary thread clutter and divides the discussion into two locations. It's actually better to keep it in one place in cases like this. So there's that.

Oooookay, then. I'll try to keep that in mind.

And you spelled my name wrong. -.- (No C, please and thank you)

Circeus said:
Amusingly, nowadays I prefer to use lifted for that, though I suspect cradling is still better in most cases.

Idk, maybe it's lifting that stand_and_carry_position should be implicated with, and cradling should also be implicated with it as a specific style of lifting?

So that would mean:
stand_and_carry_position implicating --> lifting (because the anatomy used to lift them might change but lifting one character is required in some way or another)
cradling implicating --> lifting (as a specific style of lifting which may or may not be used for sex.)
And alias lifted to --> lifting since we don't need both forms of it.

But I think as a solution this might work.

--
So images like post #392321 would be lifting + against_wall but not stand_and_carry_position since that's for the sex position only.
And cradling can be kept for when it's this style of lifting post #758900 with hands cradling the butt or thighs to support the lifted partner's weight.
And images like post #499479 can still be tagged with stand_and_carry_position even though they show a character being lifted/lifting via a method that doesn't involve any hands like cradling needs. There's a "Look Ma, no hands!" joke in there somewhere.

And images like post #764528 would be tagged with lifting but not cradling because it's a different lifting method.

It kind of promotes lifting to become a major tag. But I think it's a lot less ambiguous in meaning than carrying. Especially since carrying is currently defined as being a mishmash between both holding (carrying objects) and lifting (carrying people). Probably because the word is used for both meanings in English all of the time, which messes up how that tag is used.

furrypickle said:
whoops, so sorry about that! I fixed it now.

It's fine, sometimes I get angry for very little reason. Thank you for fixing it.

@Furrypickle That looks like a fine proposal to me!

The meaning of this tag has changed drastically since this was suggested, so I'm going to have to deny this one