Implicating triple_vaginal → multiple_insertions
Link to implication

Reason:

More than two objects in one orifice

EDIT: The tag implication triple_vaginal -> multiple_insertions (forum #239943) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Implicate to multiple_penetration instead. We aliased the *_insertion tags to *_penetration a couple of years back.

Genjar said:
Implicate to multiple_penetration instead.

Actually, It probably should be (and already is) implicated to 'triple_penetration', which should be implicated to 'multiple_penetration'.

O16 said:

Suggested aliases:

• multi_penetration → multiple_penetration.

Nah. That's different.

Multi_penetration is for when one character is using multiple things to penetrate (most commonly tentacles, or multi_penises). For example, a single tentacle_monster that's raping ten other characters at once is tagged as multi_penetration, but not as multiple_penetration.

It should probably be renamed to multi_penetrating, to make the usage clearer.

Genjar said:
Nah. That's different.

Multi_penetration is for when one character is using multiple things to penetrate (most commonly tentacles, or multi_penises). For example, a single tentacle_monster that's raping ten other characters at once is tagged as multi_penetration, but not as multiple_penetration.

It should probably be renamed to multi_penetrating, to make the usage clearer.

Ok, I guess. However if that is the usage for this tag, then it is absurdly underused.

O16 said:
However if that is the usage for this tag, then it is absurdly underused.

Maybe for tentacles, but I did check multi_penis at one point and tagged most of those. It's pretty rare for multi-dicked characters to actually insert more than one at once.

post #1280751

A different type of triple-vaginal.

On topic, I'm not really sure if it's worth having a tag for precisely three penises in a vagina. Maybe we ought to do something similar to solo, duo and group, where any number greater than two is included in the same tag.

Clawdragons said:
post #1280751

A different type of triple-vaginal.

I) It technically would be a double vaginal, since each vulva is being stimulated by two body-parts/objects, not three.

II) I don't believe this is what people want to find while using the referred tag, thus would make more sense to don't use the tag in such cases.

III) The fact of something technically be true does not mean we should consider it as such (e.g. we do not consider fingering as penetration, despite if it technically being).

Clawdragons said:
On topic, I'm not really sure if it's worth having a tag for precisely three penises in a vagina. Maybe we ought to do something similar to solo, duo and group, where any number greater than two is included in the same tag.

I) the tag isn't specifically for penises penetrating a vagina, actually it isn't even specific for sex; any object/body-part which the insertion counts as a penetration is included.

II) the number of characters in the image haven't a direct correlation to what is happening in it.

IIa) Since sex isn't necessary for the tag to be applicable, it may be used in solo posts or in posts featuring multiple characters, however no intercourse.

IIb) The characters in the image may be having sex in separated groups or some individuals may be engaged in sex while multiple characters aren't.

IIc) A duo post may portray triple vaginal according the number of body-parts involved in the penetration (tails, trunks, multiple penises etc), also sex toys could be used.

O16, you've misunderstood my post in a number of ways. I apologize if I made things unclear.

First, the image I posted was just a joke. It's not related to the topic at hand. That's why I started the next paragraph with "on topic".

Second, the second paragraph was not suggesting an alias or an implication to group or whatever, I was just drawing an analogy. I was saying that we don't have a tag for three characters being in an image - if there's more than two characters we just list it as "group". So it seems odd to me that we'd have a tag for three objects penetrating a vagina. It seems like we've already set a precedent that we don't need specific tags for each possible number of things occurring, and we can have a general tag that encompasses all cases past a certain number.

Is that a bit more clear now?

Clawdragons said:
O16, you've misunderstood my post in a number of ways. I apologize if I made things unclear.

First, the image I posted was just a joke. It's not related to the topic at hand. That's why I started the next paragraph with "on topic".

Second, the second paragraph was not suggesting an alias or an implication to group or whatever, I was just drawing an analogy. I was saying that we don't have a tag for three characters being in an image - if there's more than two characters we just list it as "group". So it seems odd to me that we'd have a tag for three objects penetrating a vagina. It seems like we've already set a precedent that we don't need specific tags for each possible number of things occurring, and we can have a general tag that encompasses all cases past a certain number.

Is that a bit more clear now?

Oh, maybe I am who should be apologizing.
Rereading now your post I understand what you meant.

Sorry for that.

The tag implication triple_vaginal -> multiple_insertions (forum #239943) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.