Implicating foreskin_pull → foreskin_play
Link to implication

Reason:

Foreskin play refers to interaction with the foreskin. In my opinion, foreskin pull relates to this definition and seems like it should be somewhat of a subcategory of foreskin play.

EDIT: The tag implication foreskin_pull -> foreskin_play (forum #268807) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

waterinacup said:
Implicating foreskin_pull → foreskin_play
Link to implication

Reason:

Foreskin play refers to interaction with the foreskin. In my opinion, foreskin pull relates to this definition and seems like it should be somewhat of a subcategory of foreskin play.

Protip: You can suggest multiple implications and aliases in the same thread if they're closely related, just type them in the reason/description text field

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Protip: You can suggest multiple implications and aliases in the same thread if they're closely related, just type them in the reason/description text field

Thanks for the tip.

The tag implication foreskin_pull -> foreskin_play (forum #268807) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

The bulk update request #6233 is active.

create implication tongue_in_foreskin (443) -> foreskin_play (2631)
create implication foreskin_pull (1104) -> foreskin_play (2631)
create implication foreskin_play (2631) -> foreskin (163123)
remove implication foreskin_pull (1104) -> foreskin (163123)

Reason:

impididinkadoo said:
Protip: You can suggest multiple implications and aliases in the same thread if they're closely related, just type them in the reason/description text field

With that in mind, here is a combo BUR for this thread and topic #22706.

All of these feel self-evident to me. For example, nipple_pull already implies nipple_play (although curiously not nipples, even transitively). Meanwhile, foreskin_pull has gained an implication to foreskin directly, but still does not imply foreskin_play. So either the pull tags should imply the play tags but (somehow) do not require the anatomy to be visible in the image, or pull is enough to imply anatomy but play isn't.

I prefer the third option. Of the 44 posts (formerly) tagged foreskin_play -foreskin, only 6 did not in fact depict a foreskin. Of these, four were members of pool #30409, in which no character has a humanoid penis and sheath_play should have been used instead (and sometimes not even that, thanks to copy-pasting). The other two were post #4390531 and its child, in which I can find no evidence of foreskin play either.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6233 (forum #386915) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6233 (forum #386915) has been approved by @slyroon.