Aliasing ben_wa_balls → anal_beads
Link to alias

Reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Wa_balls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_beads
They're the same thing split in two different tags

Wait, I thought Ben Wa balls were used to strengthen vaginal muscles.

YouWereNeverMyFriend said:
Wait, I thought Ben Wa balls were used to strengthen vaginal muscles.

Wrong hole

A perplexing situation. The wiki says "by insertion into the vagina". That doesn't sound like anal beads, but you can use anal beads for vaginal stimulation. They don't look like anal beads, at least general ones, yet at the same time people may not know the difference.

I say -1 to alias, +1 to implication. They're identical, so implying them ain't far off, but they are known for something else.

Siral_Exan said:
A perplexing situation. The wiki says "by insertion into the vagina". That doesn't sound like anal beads, but you can use anal beads for vaginal stimulation. They don't look like anal beads, at least general ones, yet at the same time people may not know the difference.

I say -1 to alias, +1 to implication. They're identical, so implying them ain't far off, but they are known for something else.

Fair enough

It should be implied both ways then

anal_beads > ben_wa_balls
ben_wa_balls > anal_beads

ShadyGuy said:
It should be implied both ways then

anal_beads > ben_wa_balls
ben_wa_balls > anal_beads

Not all anal beads look like Ben Wa beads, but all Ben Wa beads share the same form as anal beads. Hence the one way implication, you wouldn't do that with anal beads of other shapes. Nor would all anal beads being shoved into a vagina be called Ben Wa beads, those are a type of beads and not the name of the action performed.

Basically, an Occam's Razor argument: they are a type, thus they imply. The simplest solution is often the best.

no