Implicating mating_press → anvil_position
Link to implication

Reason:

Says in the article it's a rear view of anvil position.

EDIT: The tag implication mating_press -> anvil_position (forum #219279) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

+1.

If it's supposed to be for anvil position, why is it tagged for missionary, such as post #1047973 and post #1027891?

Because some people can't tell the difference between "legs above/held with arms" and "legs not above/held with arms".

To them, post #629260 and post #480218 are the same thing.

BlueDingo said:
Because some people can't tell the difference between "legs above/held with arms" and "legs not above/held with arms".

To them, post #629260 and post #480218 are the same thing.

Got an example of the first that isn't cub?

Furrin_Gok said:
Got an example of the first that isn't cub?

post #963284

Both of the earlier examples are the first example image of their respective wiki pages.

post #1179919
Is it Anvil Position if the other character is just a disembodied penis?

Furrin_Gok said:
post #1179919
Is it Anvil Position if the other character is just a disembodied penis?

It does seem like the most likely one, but that could be any number of other positions. Even stand_and_carry_position seems possible.

We don't have an official guideline for it yet, but it'd probably be best not to tag disembodied penises as positions. Those tend to be ambiguous.

bump

So far the discussion was between anvil_positionand missionary_position instead of mating_press.

As the name implies a mating_pressincludes pressing/pinning of the penetrated thus forcing their feet to their head.
This would look more like the anvil_position than the missionary_position.

dranos01 said:
bump

So far the discussion was between anvil_positionand missionary_position instead of mating_press.

As the name implies a mating_pressincludes pressing/pinning of the penetrated thus forcing their feet to their head.
This would look more like the anvil_position than the missionary_position.

Nope, at no point was it implied that mating_press has to have the penetrated/receiving partner's feet be forced towards their head.
As per the current wiki's definition, mating_press is "a particular rear view of sex in the missionary or anvil positions, where the top participant's body obscures most if not all of the bottom's body, leaving only their legs and lower body visible...".

Searching for mating_press -anvil_position missionary_position will give you tons of examples that has the top participant's body obscuring most if not all of the bottom's body while also NOT be in an anvil_position.
post #3626277

The tag implication mating_press -> anvil_position (forum #219279) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.