From the wiki page of spitroast

"A sex position where a character is orally and anally/vaginally penetrated at the same time."

From the wiki page of double_penetration

"A character who is being penetrated by a combination of 2 routes (oral, vaginal, or anal) all at the same time. This can be from any combination of sex and objects."

If 'spitroast' applies to all means of penetration, not just using a penis or strap-on, then spitroast should imply double_penetration by its very definition. If not, the wiki-page should be updated to specify what must be used by the penetrating partner.

What do you think?

+1. The definitions line up.

+1. Makes sense to me, which also surprises me that this hasn't been suggested before.

o_O i always thought double_penetration was when 2 people were penetrating the same orifice. when did that change? and if that's not double_penetration then what is it called?

-1. Theoretically yes, but there are a couple of posts tagged with 'spitroast' in which:

I) at least one of the penetrations haven't occurred yet.

II) at least one of the penetrations already was ended.

III) the oral stimulation is given through penis licking or another form if oral sex that doesn't involve penetration.

Also, for some reason, the wiki for 'penetration' says that fisting isn't include in this category, so...

Edit: "a couple" may be more like an euphemism.

treos said:
o_O i always thought double_penetration was when 2 people were penetrating the same orifice. when did that change? and if that's not double_penetration then what is it called?

Both are covered by double penetration (which can then be specified into double anal or double vaginal).

O16 said:
-1. Theoretically yes, but there are a couple of posts tagged with 'spitroast' in which:

I) at least one of the penetrations haven't occurred yet.

II) at least one of the penetrations already was ended.

III) the oral stimulation is given through penis licking or another form if oral sex that doesn't involve penetration.

Also, for some reason, the wiki for 'penetration' says that fisting isn't include in this category, so...

Edit: "a couple" may be more like an euphemism.

Then it's not really "spitroasting" is it? That sounds like some mistagging, considering the definition of spitroast specifies penetration.

UnusualParadox said:
Then it's not really "spitroasting" is it? That sounds like some mistagging, considering the definition of spitroast specifies penetration.

Wikis may be wrong too, or even need to be changed in order to math with a "more accurate usage". I am not sure if this is one of those cases, am just stating a discrepancy.

O16 said:
Wikis may be wrong too, or even need to be changed in order to math with a "more accurate usage". I am not sure if this is one of those cases, am just stating a discrepancy.

Well, your examples listed should presumably have other tags rather than spitroast. That's my point.

First example, imminent_sex paired with the proper penetration tag applied to the post. Not spitroast since the second penetration hasn't occurred yet.

Second example, after_sex paired with the proper penetration tag occurring in the post. Again, no spitroast actually occurring, therefore no spitroast tag.

Third example, penis_lick and oral with another proper penetration tag on the post. Again, no penetration, no spitroast.

If the definition of spitroast changes for whatever reason to where penetration isn't necessary, then you'd be correct. That's my interpretation of the data given to me.

UnusualParadox said:
Well, your examples listed should presumably have other tags rather than spitroast. That's my point.

Actually, this doesnt means that much. Any sex position tag may be decomposed in other tags, especially if we fragment each of them into more specific situations.

UnusualParadox said:
If the definition of spitroast changes for whatever reason to where penetration isn't necessary, then you'd be correct. That's my interpretation of the data given to me.

*some search*

Some definitions for 'spitroast' mention anal penetration and some sort oral intercourse, sometimes described as "sucking", but oral penetration isn't really mentioned; even if we interpret "sucking" as oral penetration (what isn't truly accurate) it still being unmentioned in some cases. Other descriptions though don't mention penetration at all, merely three individual engaging in sex and two of them acting on both ends of the third one.

Note: any descriptions about the cooking method were disconsidered.

O16 said:
*some search*

Some definitions for 'spitroast' mention anal penetration and some sort oral intercourse, sometimes described as "sucking", but oral penetration isn't really mentioned; even if we interpret "sucking" as oral penetration (what isn't truly accurate) it still being unmentioned in some cases. Other descriptions though don't mention penetration at all, merely three individual engaging in sex and two of them acting on both ends of the third one.

What definitions? Cite sources. I don't believe every individual entry on the UrbanDictionary counts.

UnusualParadox said:
What definitions? Cite sources. I don't believe every individual entry on the UrbanDictionary counts.

Urban dictionary (3 definitions), wikitionary, international-dictionary, slag define, lingo mash and meaningsfor. The rest that I found is basically useless (but be free to try)

Note: one of urban dictionary's ones is the only that mention oral penetration.

-1 for the reasons given by O16.

I think the wiki for spitroast should be changed to emphasize it's a sex position and anything with that position should be tagged. In fact I agree with the consensus of forum #193855 that we should change the tag to spitroast_position. The position is meant for combined oral and anal/vaginal penetration but these elements are not always immediately present to the extent that we would tag them. We shouldn't define it as strictly double_penetration, we would lose the estimated 400 posts like post #391971, post #390727, post #135529, post #361104, post #375345, etc. that are spitroast_position but not double_penetration.

-1

I think that something like post #1145450 is usefully categorized as a spitroast despite the absence of actual oral penetration. I don't favor using it for O16's cases I and II. Something like an imminent_spitroast tag might be a good idea to cover case I.

Snowy said:

I don't favor using it for O16's cases I and II. Something like an imminent_spitroast tag might be a good idea to cover case I.

The position is still easily recognizable, even if one of the acts involved in it isn't fully happening at the exact moment.

I) we could use spitroast (or 'spitroast_position') pluss 'Imminent_oral' or 'imminent_anal'.

II) I guess we could just use 'spitroast' (or 'spitroast_position'), since 'after_sex' wouldn't be really applicable.

-1 because of the commonality of 1 of 2 ends not always being penetrative, i also believe the wiki should be updated to allow some leniency in that regard to not requiring both ends to be penetrative but intimate contact being enough.

Also these cases also arnt always a case of being imminent or post-penatrative.

Also forum #140828 (cases of triple_penetration also existing)

Good point about the triple penetration.
I've seen at least one spitroast_position where a diphallic character is penetrating the bottom anally and vaginally.

Edit - found some examples:
post #35567 post #718423

So -1 to the double_penetration implication.