Aliasing spitroasting → spitroast
Link to alias

Reason:

to prevent occasional usage of less-popular wordage

EDIT: The tag alias spitroasting -> spitroast (forum #249137) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

I would argue against, considering a spit roast is the skewering of an animal for cooking, whereas 'spitroasting' is a sexual act.

MissChu said:
I would argue against, considering a spit roast is the skewering of an animal for cooking, whereas 'spitroasting' is a sexual act.

Whereas, I'd say that the opposite is true.

Regardless, spitroast is the tag used here for the sex act.

roasting over an open fire, in contrast would probably be impalement, with a roasting_spit or a spitroast_(object), as a variation of cooking_vore or cooking with furs

...not sure on the redundantness of those, but roasting_spit and spitroast_(object) seems redundant :)

Maybe we should start using rotisserie for images like post #617033, or would impalement cooking work well enough?

Wow no, do not spit on my roast thank you very much.

BlueDingo said:
Maybe we should start using rotisserie for images like post #617033, or would impalement cooking work well enough?

I think rotisserie would probably be a pretty good idea. I'm not sure if 'game hunting' animals would typically be tagged as being impaled or not... (I really can't find any. all of them are 'getting ready to eat people' pictures...)

I dunno though, this is Not My Fetish.

but the confusion between 'dicks in both ends' and 'making dinner' seems like a good place to clarify.

BlueDingo said:
Maybe we should start using rotisserie for images like post #617033, or would impalement cooking work well enough?

+1 for the use of rotisserie, it seems that at least two posts have used it correctly already

The tag alias spitroasting -> spitroast (forum #249137) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

should we change this tag to spitroast_position to unify it with the rest of the sex position tags?
the current tag name is also a tad ambiguous since "spitroast" has definitions beyond the sex act, probably not ambiguous enough to create a disambiguation tag, but ambiguous enough to change the tag name.

darryus said:
should we change this tag to spitroast_position to unify it with the rest of the sex position tags?
the current tag name is also a tad ambiguous since "spitroast" has definitions beyond the sex act, probably not ambiguous enough to create a disambiguation tag, but ambiguous enough to change the tag name.

+1

darryus said:
should we change this tag to spitroast_position to unify it with the rest of the sex position tags?
the current tag name is also a tad ambiguous since "spitroast" has definitions beyond the sex act, probably not ambiguous enough to create a disambiguation tag, but ambiguous enough to change the tag name.

+1

darryus said:
should we change this tag to spitroast_position to unify it with the rest of the sex position tags?
the current tag name is also a tad ambiguous since "spitroast" has definitions beyond the sex act, probably not ambiguous enough to create a disambiguation tag, but ambiguous enough to change the tag name.

+1

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t a non-BUR alias correctly move all the aliases and implications to the new tag? So we can simply spitroast -> spitroast_position without the complicated un-aliasing and re-aliasing?

darryus said:
should we change this tag to spitroast_position to unify it with the rest of the sex position tags?
the current tag name is also a tad ambiguous since "spitroast" has definitions beyond the sex act, probably not ambiguous enough to create a disambiguation tag, but ambiguous enough to change the tag name.

+1 Makes spitroast sound a lot less awkward too.