Implicating hug → embrace
Link to implication

Reason:

A hug is a kind of embrace.

EDIT: The tag implication hug -> embrace (forum #216170) has been approved by @Millcore.

EDIT: The tag implication hug -> embrace (forum #216170) has been rejected by @slyroon.

+1, and from the discussion on topic #26349 I think cuddling should also imply embrace.

Tag Implications:

• cuddling -> embrace
• hug -> embrace

The bulk update request #734 has been rejected.

create implication cuddling (13952) -> embrace (47194)

Reason: See discussion on topic #26349

EDIT: The bulk update request #734 (forum #306210) has been rejected by @slyroon.

...what's the difference between a hug and an embrace?

strikerman said:
...what's the difference between a hug and an embrace?

Hug is strictly non-sexual, while embrace isn't.

post #2247115 vs post #2374401

The tag implication hug -> embrace (forum #216170) has been approved by @Millcore.

(post #150446 )

So because of implication in this thread (implication #9919 ): hug implies to embrace,

BUT hug wiki says "For tagging purposes, characters are considered to be hugging when they're not having sex ..."
and "If the characters are having sex, use embrace instead."

so if characters in image (or other upload) are NOT having sex, then tagger adds hug tag
BUT because of the hug->embrace implication,
the NON-sex upload with hug tag also gets embrace tag auto-added.
The problem being same image get tagged with
hug (for uploads withOUT sex)
and embrace (for uploads WITH sex)

arg???

listerthesquirrel said:
(post #150446 )

So because of implication in this thread (implication #9919 ): hug implies to embrace,

BUT hug wiki says "For tagging purposes, characters are considered to be hugging when they're not having sex ..."
and "If the characters are having sex, use embrace instead."

so if characters in image (or other upload) are NOT having sex, then tagger adds hug tag
BUT because of the hug->embrace implication,
the NON-sex upload with hug tag also gets embrace tag auto-added.
The problem being same image get tagged with
hug (for uploads withOUT sex)
and embrace (for uploads WITH sex)

arg???

just remove "instead" from the wiki pages? it'd be better to have a tag that's a catchall for all embraces rather than removing the implication.

Bump. Cuddling should imply embrace as hug already does.

snpthecat said:
Bump. Cuddling should imply embrace as hug already does.

Cuddling isn't always embracing:
post #4303824 post #4254834 post #4248427
An implication would mistag posts like that with embrace because they're cuddling without embracing.

I don't know how this implication was approved or had so many positive votes, it doesn't really make sense:

• If an embrace was intended for hugging within a sexual situation, then all hugs cannot be embraces
• As far as dictionary definitions go, "embrace" and "hug" are synonyms, so following that logic, embrace should be aliased to hug, there's no reason for both tags to exist, there is no embrace that is not a hug

Embrace clearly didn't do a good enough job at clearly defining itself as "a character hugging their partner during sexual contact", so I went ahead and made a hugging_during_sex tag, the name is a little clunky, but it eliminates any ambiguity about what the tag is for.

The tag implication hug -> embrace (forum #216170) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #734 (forum #306210) has been rejected by @slyroon.