Implicating fully_sheathed → sheath
Link to implication

Reason:

To be able to tag this, sheath must be visible.
I'm still not sure about the name, but with several months and 150+ tagged posts, I think we're stuck with fully_sheathed. Unless someone can come up with a better name?

Seems like a pretty worthless tag, but sure.

Yeah, it's on the same level of usefulness as flaccid: probably not searched often, and probably not blacklisted either.

It's handy as a tagging aid, though. For instance, sheath -penis -fully_sheathed = lots of images that are missing the penis or penis_tip tags (and mistagged scabbards).

Note: Under the current standards, visible sheath is tagged as explicit. Even for feral animals.

I wasn't aware this was actually official now, but I fully support this.

A random question for the admins: Has anyone ever tried putting in an implication of something like penis -> rating:explicit?

Peekaboo said:
Seems like a pretty worthless tag, but sure.

More on topic...I kind of agree here. I rarely tag sheath anyways unless the penis isn't actually visible so this almost seems redundant to me. To me it seems like sheath -penis gives you about the same results without a second tag.

Then again, I'm more interested in equine than canine, so I'm probably a little biased.

parasprite said:
I wasn't aware this was actually official now, but I fully support this

That's exactly why I wrote it in small print: I'm not hundred percent certain about it. But all the recent admin decisions have been that it should be explicit, therefore it seems like a standard. Sheath counts as lower genitals (equivalent of foreskin), therefore explicit.

Would be great to get a definite admin ruling for that, though.

Semi off-topic question

Random early examples in order of least->most like a sheath: post #114, post #663, post #259

I don't think flaccid is useless, but fully_sheathed is.
It's about as logical as tagging no_penetration, no_ejaculation etc.
If you can't see the penis due to the penis being fully sheathed, sheath alone will do the trick; And if it's poking out, we have tags to describe that as well.

Genjar said:
That's exactly why I wrote it in small print: I'm not hundred percent certain about it. But all the recent admin decisions have been that it should be explicit, therefore it seems like a standard. Sheath counts as lower genitals (equivalent of foreskin), therefore explicit.

Would be great to get a definite admin ruling for that, though.

Honestly this came up in committee chat, and the results were mixed. If the balls can be seen along with the sheath, then that solves the issue by making it explicit anyways. If there's a penis_tip as well as the sheath, then it also solves the issue because that's explicit. But when someone's got a fully sheathed sheath poking up over the line of their boxers...I think that's still just questionable. It's like nature's bulge, and not quite explicit enough on its own. It's not exactly set in stone at the moment though.

parasprite said:
A random question for the admins: Has anyone ever tried putting in an implication of something like penis -> rating:explicit?

I asked and apparently the devs would have to add that functionality for that to be possible. And apparently someone tried it once and it ... broke... things. Hopefully someday the devs will get around to adding that functionality though, because there's a few like penis to --> rating:explicit that would work quite well if it was possible, (even though it would probably be tricky to work out so that it didn't die when there was a conflict). But currently it just isn't a possible option.

Peekaboo said:
Seems like a pretty worthless tag, but sure.

I disagree. It's the best way to ensure a search actually gets you all the pics that have a sheath that's completely flaccid (a tag we aren't allowed to use in case of sheaths, so this is basically its substitute), if that's what you're looking for. And some people will be. Perhaps not very many, but since when has that been a good reason to just not tag something? I think a specific tag for a flaccid sheath can still be considered sought-after next to tags like black_pawpads and countershading.

Peekaboo said:
I don't think flaccid is useless, but fully_sheathed is.
It's about as logical as tagging no_penetration, no_ejaculation etc.
If you can't see the penis due to the penis being fully sheathed, sheath alone will do the trick; And if it's poking out, we have tags to describe that as well.

Sheath -penis works to some extent, but will exclude any image from your search that has multiple characters and at least one with a visible penis, while there could very easily have been a sheathed character in there as well.

Case in point:

post #607579

And just searching for sheath will get you all sorts of stuff you aren't after. Nope, don't think it's that worthless at all.

Jugofthat said:
And just searching for sheath will get you all sorts of stuff you aren't after. Nope, don't think it's that worthless at all.

Mhm, so it's somewhat similar to the issue with the muscular_female and muscular_intersex tags?
In that case, it's not really worthless, just niche. Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

Jugofthat said:

And just searching for sheath will get you all sorts of stuff you aren't after. Nope, don't think it's that worthless at all.

I'm a few days out from being able to work on it, but when I go through the sheath/knot/canine_penis and add canine_penis to (mostly) canines that need it, I'll try to remember to add fully_sheathed if I see it.

In the meantime, I'll keep an eye on this thread for any changes in usage.

That'd be awesome, it's very underused at the moment. :)

It does seem to have some purpose. Approved.

What would be the appropriate way to tag genital_slits where it can be easily implied there's a penis inside (e.g. especially in animations, slideshows, sequences, etc. where it's obvious).

Or if there isn't, should there be? 'Cause using fully_sheathed is currently not appropriate.

Chessax said:
What would be the appropriate way to tag genital_slits where it can be easily implied there's a penis inside? /snip

For that specifically, we do have becoming_erect, though a valid slit tag needs to more or less imply there's a dick in it, no?

The difference between a slit and pussy is something I've noticed being problematic, and effectively random on many posts where a clit isn't visible. I've just left them alone because we don't really have official guidelines for non-anthros yet.

Chessax said:
What would be the appropriate way to tag genital_slits where it can be easily implied there's a penis inside (e.g. especially in animations, slideshows, sequences, etc. where it's obvious).

Not sure if I understand the question.
As per the wiki (and the alias to cock slit), genital slit is assumed to always contain a penis. If it doesn't, then it's a pussy.

If it's genuinely impossible to tell which, then ambiguous_slit applies instead.

Just for clarification I'm not asking for a definition of genital_slit vs pussy or anything like that.

Ijerk said:
For that specifically, we do have becoming_erect, though a valid slit tag needs to more or less imply there's a dick in it, no?
...

That solves some of the cases, but not all.

Genjar said:
Not sure if I understand the question.
...

I'm looking for an equivalent to fully_sheathed for genital_slit, since fully_sheathed can't be used for genital_slits due to this implication.

It's the same issue as with sheath and fully_sheathed; sheath doesn't mean the penis is fully_sheathed, and genital_slit doesn't mean the penis is fully sheathed inside, additionally genital_slit -penis doesn't work for non-solo posts. It has the exact same issues as discussed above for fully_sheathed and sheath.

I do realize it might be a minor tag, but still.