Implicating breath_play → asphyxiation
Link to implication

Reason:

breathplay currently is set to imply asphyxiation, but breath_play (which breathplay is aliased to) is not.

I think the alias went backwards. I'm pretty sure it should be "Breathplay," not "Breath Play."

I think it should go the other way too. Most people don't immediately think of underwater breathplay as "asphyxiation". They think "drowning".

Circeus said:
I think it should go the other way too. Most people don't immediately think of underwater breathplay as "asphyxiation". They think "drowning".

Drowning is the asphyxia caused by inhalation of liquid.

Furrin_Gok said:
I think the alias went backwards. I'm pretty sure it should be "Breathplay," not "Breath Play."

Is quite possible, since something similar already happend before ("flaming_hair" was incorrectly implicated to "hair", when was suposed to imply "fire").

O16 said:
Drowning is the asphyxia caused by inhalation of liquid.

Is quite possible, since something similar already happend before ("flaming_hair" was incorrectly implicated to "hair", when was suposed to imply "fire").

breathplay and asphyxiation/drowning/dunking are different things. dunking implies breathplay, drowning implies asphyxiation. Asphyxiation is a lethal action. Breathplay is _any_ way to regulate breathing pace (e.g. covering mouth +nose for a moment), never to actually asphyxiate. The implication is wrong by term meanings. e621 seem does support only two-way implications. Asphyxiation may imply breathplay (gone wrong or too far, for example), but breathplay doesn't. As I said, covering mouth of partner to restrict intensity of breathing with hand IS a kind of breathplay. That's why solid gags aren't completely safe

Oh dear. I don't remember approving this one.

Looks like I have some reading to do (forum #159097)

Knotty_Curls said:
Oh dear. I don't remember approving this one.

Looks like I have some reading to do (forum #159097)

Sorry for being a post necromancer <.<