Implicating reddened_butt → butt
Link to implication

Reason:

Can not have a reddened butt with no butt.

Related implications:

• reddened_butt → spank_marks

-1 for reddened_butt → spank_marks

all instances of reddened butts does not fit under spank marks tag. other way around it could work.

Mutisija said:
-1 for reddened_butt → spank_marks

all instances of reddened butts does not fit under spank marks tag. other way around it could work.

I can't find any example of "reddened_butt" that wouldn't fit under "spank_marks", actually, I am starting to think it might be the case for an alias.

O16 said:
I can't find any example of reddened_butt that wouldn't fit under spank_marks, actually, I am starting to think it might be the case for an alias.

Lot's of stuff under butt_blush which are reddened butts don't fit under spank_marks

Blind_Guardian said:
Lot's of stuff under butt_blush which are reddened butts don't fit under spank_marks

I was refering to the posts currently under "reddened_butt" (I should have used quotation marks to sinalize that, sorry).

So, would be more appropriate to implicate both, "spank_marks" and "butt_blush", to "reddened_butt"?

Approved original suggestion.

I'll let this sit around for a while before I decide whether `reddened_butt` should be an umbrella tag for all of these other suggestions, namely

• `spank_marks` -> reddened_butt
• `butt_blush` -> reddened_butt