Implicating uncut_with_sheath → humanoid_penis
Link to implication

Reason:

Because that is in the description of uncut_with_sheath.
Should also have uncut imply humanoid_penis (unless there is a penis type aside from humanoid that has a foreskin)
And while we're here might as well have partially_retracted_foreskin imply humanoid_penis as well.

EDIT: The tag implication uncut_with_sheath -> humanoid_penis (forum #265970) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Do animals even have foreskins? I was under the impression that the sheath is more or less the foreskin of the animal kingdom. More or less.

-1 you can draw a penis with foreskin without making it humanoid penis. i have seen people add foreskins on horse dicks.

MissChu said:
Do animals even have foreskins? I was under the impression that the sheath is more or less the foreskin of the animal kingdom. More or less.

None that I'm aware of, and yeah, a sheath is like a thicker/stiffer foreskin that only attaches to the penis waaay down at the base. So, most animals would find it impossible to masturbate like humans do unless they kept their penis inside their sheath or used a TON of lube.

siikaprinssi said:
-1 you can draw a penis with foreskin without making it humanoid penis. i have seen people add foreskins on horse dicks.

Ah, I was afraid of that. Haven't seen any myself, but I knew it was possible. Did they also visibly have sheaths? (I personally consider one or more folds of skin making a ring around the base of a penis to be evidence of a sheath, though it can be hard to be sure on species that lack fur in that area) If not, might be worth having a new tag for such rare instances.

The tag implication uncut_with_sheath -> humanoid_penis (forum #265970) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.