Implicating sex_inside → multiple_inside
Link to implication

Reason:

sex_inside describes a subset of vore where, as the name suggests, sex takes place inside.

You can't really do that sort of thing with just one person in there.

EDIT: The tag implication sex_inside -> multiple_inside (forum #257871) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

What if a person is fucking themselves? Does that count as sex?

Furrin_Gok said:
What if a person is fucking themselves? Does that count as sex?

no, its masturbation.

Eggplant said:
no, its masturbation.

Also self_fuck.

Anyway, calling those tags *_inside is problematic, considering that we use the inside tag for indoor scenes. And by extension, sex_inside would just be characters having sex indoors.

Looks like an another set of tags that really should've been discussed first. The group should be renamed, -1 to all related implications for now.

I'd suggest tagging something like sex_in_stomach, sex_in_uterus, etc instead. The location seems important, since post-vore and post-unbirthing sex are different kinks.

Genjar said:
Anyway, calling those tags *_inside is problematic, considering that we use the inside tag for indoor scenes. And by extension, sex_inside would just be characters having sex indoors.

Looks like an another set of tags that really should've been discussed first. The group should be renamed, -1 to all related implications for now.

Fair enough, though neither voreception, multiple_inside or sex_inside are exactly common (<20 images each), so it's kinda understandable this wasn't discussed at any time before.

I'd suggest tagging something like sex_in_stomach, sex_in_uterus, etc instead. The location seems important, since post-vore and post-unbirthing sex are different kinks.

Not a bad idea, though what would you call the parent tag (they're both some kind of "sex during vore" thing) and would that naming pattern hold up for cock vore and anal vore?

EDIT: Also, the *_inside/inside_* pattern is used for a lot of things, not just to mean indoors.

Fifteen said:
EDIT: Also, the *_inside/inside_* pattern is used for a lot of things, not just to mean indoors.

A lot of those are duplicated under the in_* group, and in many cases that group would be a better fit: In_stomach instead of inside_stomach, etc.

is necessary for clarity in some cases (inside_underwear vs in_underwear), but multiple_inside is too ambiguous to keep. Even something more obvious such as peeing_inside has occasionally been mistagged for 'peeing indoors'.

Genjar said:
I'd suggest tagging something like sex_in_stomach, sex_in_uterus, etc instead. The location seems important, since post-vore and post-unbirthing sex are different kinks.

I like this idea. :) I wonder if anyone has done a.. uh.. well, sex_in_intestines or something. I was thinking from the anal vore/insertion side of things, but I guess that could be a post-swallowing step too. Hm. Sex_in_intestines? Sex_in_anus? sex_in_bowels? Sex_in_anal_cavity? :P

SnowWolf said:
Sex_in_intestines? Sex_in_anus? sex_in_bowels? Sex_in_anal_cavity? :P

I think either of the first two would work.
Intestines is a well-established tag, and cum_in_anus already includes internal so sex_in_anus would be consistent with that. Whereas we have no *bowel* tags.

Genjar said:
I think either of the first two would work.
Intestines is a well-established tag, and cum_in_anus already includes internal so sex_in_anus would be consistent with that. Whereas we have no *bowel* tags.

I hate just suggesting ONE tag. Plus, if I throw enough out there, maybe something will stick, or inspire a better idea. :)

Honestly, I like sex_in_intestines most. sex_in_anus makes me think of something a poor english speaker would use to describe anal sex.

Genjar said:
I think either of the first two would work.
Intestines is a well-established tag, and cum_in_anus already includes internal so sex_in_anus would be consistent with that. Whereas we have no *bowel* tags.

But "anus" is just the name of the muscle at the end, that wouldn't even make sense. Consider also that it's not always easy to tell where the people "inside" currently are or or from what end they got there, and it'd still be nice to be able to imply however many tags that ends up giving us to a single one anyway.

Genjar said:
A lot of those are duplicated under the in_* group, and in many cases that group would be a better fit: In_stomach instead of inside_stomach, etc.

I personally prefer inside_* because in_* has far too many alternate uses and meanings.

inside_*

is necessary for clarity in some cases (inside_underwear vs in_underwear), but multiple_inside is too ambiguous to keep. Even something more obvious such as peeing_inside has occasionally been mistagged for 'peeing indoors'.

So occasional mistagging should stop us from using an otherwise perfectly fine and rather descriptive tag group? If anything, shouldn't we alias inside to indoors instead?

Fifteen said:
But "anus" is just the name of the muscle at the end, that wouldn't even make sense.

As I said, either of the first two. So sex_in_intestines, then?

So occasional mistagging should stop us from using an otherwise perfectly fine and rather descriptive tag group?

Multiple_inside is one of the most ambiguous tag names that I've seen lately. And in addition to what was already mentioned, anything related to character counts should usually follow the solo/duo/group format.

Sex_inside isn't descriptive either. There's nothing about it that associates it with vore.

If anything, shouldn't we alias inside to indoors instead?

It's the companion tag for outside, and covers locations such as inside a cave or a spacecraft. Which are not technically indoors.

Genjar said:
As I said, either of the first two. So sex_in_intestines, then?

post #754195 is supposed to be anal vore (though whether or not it's easy to tell by the details from this image alone is debatable). Calling it "sex in intestines" while it's really just "sex in some ambiguous vore place, don't ask questions" seems to be trying to be over-specific for something that has no reason to be.

Multiple_inside is one of the most ambiguous tag names that I've seen lately. And in addition to what was already mentioned, anything related to character counts should usually follow the solo/duo/group format.

Sex_inside isn't descriptive either. There's nothing about it that associates it with vore.

I totally get your concerns and I actually agree with you. I made up those tags because I felt like this was something probably worth tagging, I just feel like the proposed alternatives so far are very specific and wouldn't work in most cases for the reasons stated above. Unless we can have a catch-all tag for cases where it's not clear where eaxctly inside someone sex is occuring, I don't think we'd be able to reliably tag that sort of thing without overstepping tag boundaries or just leaving off some images because they wouldn't apply to any of the specific tags.

Fifteen said:
Unless we can have a catch-all tag for cases where it's not clear where eaxctly inside someone sex is occuring, I don't think we'd be able to reliably tag that sort of thing without overstepping tag boundaries or just leaving off some images because they wouldn't apply to any of the specific tags.

Rough.
The tag is too badly named to keep, and needs to go. Next time, discuss the creation of new tags first, as per the tag creation rules.

Tag them as post-vore_sex or internal_sex instead, or something like that. Either should work, though I'd vote for the latter since it's consistent with the usage of internal.

Guess I'll drop the implication for now, we obviously need to figure out namming patterns for all those vore + sex tags. It's probably best we move that discussion to forum #258640.

Next time, discuss the creation of new tags first, as per the tag creation rules.

What tag creation rules? I've never heard of those, where can I find them?

Fifteen said:
What tag creation rules? I've never heard of those, where can I find them?

I don't blame you for not knowing about it, because it's just a set of rules that the admins keep mentioning on the forum, in the tickets, etc. "Don't make entirely new tags without discussion", etc. Very easy to miss unless you read everything.

As far as I know, the only wiki page that mentions it is howto:comment, and only in a round-about way. I think it should be added to e621:rules for better visibility.. The Tagging Abuse category kind of covers it (Adding invalid/disruptive tags), but that's pretty vague.

The tag implication sex_inside -> multiple_inside (forum #257871) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.