The tag implication #31939 cervical_penetration -> cervix has been rejected.

Reason: Because you can't apply the tag all about penetrating the cervix, unless the cervix is visible. (And being penetrated, but that goes without saying. :P)

EDIT: The tag implication cervical_penetration -> cervix (forum #289497) has been rejected by @Millcore.

There was another implication request for this in topic #4337. It might be worth revisiting the topic since the thread's 5 years old. There's no need to imply penetration, though, since there's an implication chain from cervical_penetration to vaginal_penetration, which further implies penetration.

The problem with the argument raised by the first response to that thread, is that vaginal_penetration SHOULD imply pussy, because if you can't actually SEE where it's going in, and the character isn't a male/gynomorph ('cause then you could assume there isn't a vagina to potentially penetrate in the first place), TWYS says that gets ambiguous_penetration. You can only tag (or are only supposed to be able to) vaginal_penetration if you can directly see something going in a pussy. For that matter, if the character IS female, you can't tag anal_penetration unless you can directly see an anus that's being penetrated, either.

jacob said:
The problem with the argument raised by the first response to that thread, is that vaginal_penetration SHOULD imply pussy, because if you can't actually SEE where it's going in, and the character isn't a male/gynomorph ('cause then you could assume there isn't a vagina to potentially penetrate in the first place), TWYS says that gets ambiguous_penetration.

Arguably, such posts should be moved to ambiguous_penetration, and having vaginal_penetration imply pussy would just add another mistag
There's also a hypothetical scenario of the anus being 100% visible and accounted for, while there is definite penetration occuring with the pussy entirely obscured. Vice-versa for a character being penetrated while their pussy is visibly uninvolved.

magnuseffect said:
Arguably, such posts should be moved to ambiguous_penetration, and having vaginal_penetration imply pussy would just add another mistag
There's also a hypothetical scenario of the anus being 100% visible and accounted for, while there is definite penetration occuring with the pussy entirely obscured. Vice-versa for a character being penetrated while their pussy is visibly uninvolved.

....what? I'm not sure I understood what you're trying to say, could you clarify, or provide an example?

jacob said:
....what? I'm not sure I understood what you're trying to say, could you clarify, or provide an example?

post #1937270
You can obscure the orifice being penetrated while the other orifice is still visible.

The tag implication cervical_penetration -> cervix (forum #289497) has been rejected by @Millcore.