Implicating cum_in_pussy → pussy
Link to implication

Reason:

because of TWYS, the female tag is an unreliable tag to exclude to remove female characters, so excluding pussy tends to remove female characters.

I've found images tagged cum_in_pussy without pussy being tagged and feel this should be a tagged relationship.

EDIT: The tag implication cum_in_pussy -> pussy (forum #260810) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

This has been suggested before: forum #158192

The pussy has to be visible so if there's a vaginal creampie but you can't see it then it shouldn't have the tag. That's like a no brainer man...

glimglam said:
The pussy has to be visible so if there's a vaginal creampie but you can't see it then it shouldn't have the tag. That's like a no brainer man...

How do you tell if its a vaginal creampie if you cannot see the the pussy? There's at least one hole very close by which the cum could be leaking from.

lyokira said:
How do you tell if its a vaginal creampie if you cannot see the the pussy? There's at least one hole very close by which the cum could be leaking from.

When you can clearly see that other hole but not the pussy:
post #2401219 post #2335247 post #2345704

Or when you can tell that other hole is not where the cum is leaking out from:
post #2383456

lyokira said:
How do you tell if its a vaginal creampie if you cannot see the the pussy? There's at least one hole very close by which the cum could be leaking from.

Internal penetration/impregnation cutaways, the anus being visibly uninvolved, so much cum you can't actually see the pussy, etc.

I agree there's a lot of cum_in_pussy cases where pussy is untagged, but implicating pussy is going to cause a lot of false-positives.

It's probably more worth arguing about whether the penetration tags should require visibility, or if anything without visible penetration should be switched to just sex.
post #2461304

magnuseffect said:
It's probably more worth arguing about whether the penetration tags should require visibility, or if anything without visible penetration should be switched to just sex.
post #2461304

Isn't that what the ambiguous penetration tag is for?

strikerman said:
Isn't that what the ambiguous penetration tag is for?

Nope, ambiguous_penetration is for when you can't tell which orifice is being penetrated when it's definitely one of them.
But it's not always completely clear whether penetration (or other sex) is occurring at all when the penetrable zones are obscured, and a lot of assumptions have to be made based on other things. There's not really a tag for that and it's a pretty weird area.

glimglam said:
The pussy has to be visible so if there's a vaginal creampie but you can't see it then it shouldn't have the tag. That's like a no brainer man...

Why? If there is a vaginal creampie, then there is a pussy. It is impossible to have a vaginal creampie without a pussy. That is a no-brainer there. Unless you are insinuating that people carve holes into peoples pelvic region and choose to fuck it instead?

I'd instead argue that vaginal_penetration cannot be implicated without seeing it.

dark_echo said:
Why? If there is a vaginal creampie, then there is a pussy. It is impossible to have a vaginal creampie without a pussy.

While pussy doesn't stop existing just because you can't see it, the tag does.

The tag implication cum_in_pussy -> pussy (forum #260810) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.