Implicating bisexual_sandwich → sandwich_position
Link to implication]

Reason:

Implicate bisexual too.

Edit: I messed up and entered the sandwich tag instead of sandwich_position.

No, implicate to sandwich_position instead.

Sandwich is a disambiguation tag. It should be aliased to sandwich_(disambiguation). (We didn't have disambiguation tags back when that was split.)

Changed to sandwitch_position and approved both.

Also, two things:

1. You don't have to strike through the link. I still have to delete the implication you made and make a new one.
2. I accidentally put in "bisexual_sandwitch" in the deletion reason. Ignore that typo.

okay, this seems to be the oldest thread on the matter that screwed everything up for years now, so bumping it.

other related threads:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/20586 - request to remove this implication
https://e621.net/forum_topics/24104 - same
https://e621.net/forum_topics/24292 - something related

bisexual_sandwich should absolutely NOT imply sandwich_position

reasons?
let's start from e6 definitions:
1. in a sandwich_position 2 characters with penises/strap-ons (typically male) are penetrating the 3rd one in the middle from both front and back, making it vaginal+anal, double_vaginal, or double_anal: typically M->F<-M, but can be anything really
2. in a bisexual_sandwich you need 2 male characters and one female, with one male penetrating the other male, and the other male penetrating the female: M->M->F
3. in a train_position you have a series of characters penetrating one another in the same direction, usually being M->(...)M->M or M->(...)M->F

Given that, clearly, 2. is not a subset of 1., but it is of 3., so i request to move that implication from bisexual_sandwich->sandwich_position to bisexual_sandwich->train_position

I would also like to agree with Sorrowless from one of the linked threads, to expand the definition of a bisexual sandwich to include to M->F(with a strap-on)->F as that would indeed be a a sandwich-like position where one person would have to be bisexual.

cheerio

The implication makes perfect sense to me. M->M<-F, M->F<-F, M->F<-M, F->M<-F, F->F<-F, and M->M<-M are all sandwich positions, and the bisexuality aspect applies if there's bisexuality on display (i.e. bisexual_sandwich would only apply if it's one of those and someone of one sex is sexually interacting with both sexes within that group, even if they're not directly adjacent, like M->F<-M where the two males are penetrating the center female and kissing/groping each other). If the grouping doesn't include one of these, it's not a sandwich position, bisexual or not. Conversely, M->M->M, M->M->F, M->F->M, M->F->F, F->M->M, F->M->F, F->F->M, and F->F->F would be train positions. If it's one of those and someone of one sex is sexually interacting with both sexes, it would be something like bisexual_train (including M->F->M, where the male in back is giving a handjob to the male in front).

watsit said:
The implication makes perfect sense to me. (...)

it WOULD make overall more sense IF the e6 definition of bisexual_sandwich was different, and we added that bisexual_train, yes :)
however, current definition is basically what you're describing as bisexual_train and that should imply the train_position.

i wish e6 saved which tags are present only due to an implication, and which were added manually by some user... changing stuff like this would be so much easier.

shingen said:
it WOULD make overall more sense IF the e6 definition of bisexual_sandwich was different, and we added that bisexual_train, yes :)
however, current definition is basically what you're describing as bisexual_train and that should imply the train_position.

Definitions and the wiki can be changed. If there would need to be a tagging project to clean up or redo the tags anyway, it might be a good time to, if the staff is on board with it.

I see it now. The bisexual sandwich definition here is not right. Simply said in a sandwich the penetrations, let’s call it forces, meet in the middle while in a train it’s going forward. The female have to be penning back in the bi sandwich examples. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Also does the way the end of the train is facing matter? When you imagine a real train the locomotive is facing forward.

Yeah, the bisexual sandwich wiki seems to be wrong.
It's not a sandwich position if everyone is facing the same direction, that's a train position instead. Two of the wiki thumbnails are of the wrong position...

genjar said:
Yeah, the bisexual sandwich wiki seems to be wrong.
It's not a sandwich position if everyone is facing the same direction, that's a train position instead. Two of the wiki thumbnails are of the wrong position...

Bisexual sandwich (as currently defined) can't be a sandwich position (as currently defined). Sandwich position isn't defined by which way the participants are facing, but by penetration: any -> any <- any. Bisexual sandwich is defined as male -> male -> female, which doesn't match. However, I find the current bisexual sandwich tag to be useful, so I'm opposed to major changes to the definition. Instead I'd like to propose simply renaming it to bisexual_train or similar and then implying to train position.

sorrowless said:
Also does the way the end of the train is facing matter? When you imagine a real train the locomotive is facing forward.

For the current train position tag it doesn't matter, and I'm opposed to changing that unless we simultaneously introduce a new tag that is identical in definition to the current tag. If you're worried about matching real trains, some railroads habitually operated diesel electrics facing either direction at the front of the train so they wouldn't have to get the locomotive turned around frequently.

Oops, started a new thread without running a forum search.

Count me as another voice for sandwich_position requires both outer partners to be penetrating the centre partner

I agree that bisexual_sandwich isn't the same as sandwich_position. The current use of bisexual_sandwich allows for a straight line of penetration following M -> M -> F with the female either facing inward or outward. Unless the penetrating participants are at both ends of the position this is the same thing as train_position as it is described on the wiki for sandwich_position, which also specifies them to be two different things.