Implicating spiked_penis → spikes
Link to implication

Reason:

Edit: Whoops, hit enter before putting in a reason

-> [adjective]

Should probably clean that out, some of them seem to be barbs.

Good catch,

what exactly counts as barbs and spikes though?

post #236319 post #670631 post #889764 post #652800 post #577634 post #596544

[spiked_penis -spikes -barbs]

I think some literal definition is as good as any in this case; backward pointing protrusion preventing retraction. However for me a barb is very small in relative to the thing it is attached to so I would add "small" to this definition.

I imagine spikes are larger, and it doesn't really matter what orientation they have. I also imagine that spikes doesn't have quite as much focus on the material as a barb, i.e. I wouldn't consider a barb made out of jello to be a true barb since it's lost most of it's main defining trait.

However this is all quite philosophical... But would be nice to get some proper definitions because I've hesitated many times to use these tags for obvious reasons. Another question would be if it is even possible to keep those two tags clean and separated (not that's I'd want to combine them either way).

Note that we also have nubbed_penis used for "less sharp looking spikes" (as well as ridged_penis, but that's another story).