Implicating bushy_pubes → pubes
Link to implication

Reason:

I've "created" this tag, bushy pubes, to describe when pubes are a lot thicker / cover a lot more than "usual", think of it as the natural bush that grows if you don't shave your pubes, or only shape it.

I think it needs to have its own tag back, as the standalone tag "bushy pubes" was recently aliased to pubes, I simply ask it to be un-aliased and implicated to pubes instead, as I'm going to start tagging like crazy during the next two months and afterwards, when I have the time, and I can't do that currently, thanks !

EDIT: The tag implication bushy_pubes -> pubes (forum #236712) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Related:

• new pubes tag ?] by Shadowfear
• Tag Alias: bushy_pubes -> pubes] by Linicks

(are you linking things to push my arguments further or... what ? I kinda fear misunderstanding)

Shadowfear said:
(are you linking things to push my arguments further or... what ? I kinda fear misunderstanding)

It's pretty literal, there are two discussions related to this one. Judgement can't be blindly made when examples occur in the past, so linking these examples let better judgement occur.

If your argument is "valid" (for lack of better term), then these past examples may say why. If "invalid" (again), then these past examples also may say why.

Siral_Exan said:
It's pretty literal, there are two discussions related to this one. Judgement can't be blindly made when examples occur in the past, so linking these examples let better judgement occur.

If your argument is "valid" (for lack of better term), then these past examples may say why. If "invalid" (again), then these past examples also may say why.

hmm, I understand that, just that as most people in the two links were agreeing with me of letting this tag live on, I discarded the possibility that the links had the purpose of invalidating my argument

The tag implication bushy_pubes -> pubes (forum #236712) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.