The bulk update request #80 has been rejected.

remove alias girly_penetrating (0) -> penetration (846610)

Reason: According to the wiki for girly_penetrating, this tag refers to "When a male character who exhibits feminine characteristics is penetrating another". This is distinct from general penetration and therefore should not be aliased. Instead girly_penetrating should imply penetration, since that will be occurring in any image that has the tag, and girly, since a girly character is doing the penetration in any image with this tag. Unfortunately, I cannot include the requested implications in the script because of the alias.

EDIT: The bulk update request #80 (forum #292262) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Having a distinct tag for when it's specifically a girly guy doing the penetrating, sounds wholly unnecessary. It would just add to tag bloat, when you could simply search for "male_penetrating_[insert whichever sex you'd prefer] girly." Sure, this could easily get a few false positives, but not enough to be worth adding in a whole extra tag.

jacob said:
Having a distinct tag for when it's specifically a girly guy doing the penetrating, sounds wholly unnecessary. It would just add to tag bloat, when you could simply search for "male_penetrating_[insert whichever sex you'd prefer] girly." Sure, this could easily get a few false positives, but not enough to be worth adding in a whole extra tag.

Actually you will find that you have to sift through a vast amount of girly males being penetrated to find the much rarer cases where the opposite is true in a m/m scenario. Other non-masculine gender combinations I would agree with you. You also have to be more specific with your tagging to remove disembodied penis scenes.

In this case, it may be useful to have a tag for a submissive stereotype (girly) playing a dominant role (penetrative, control oriented "domination"). It sounds like a similar usage of the role reversal tag, and that tag may apply to a limited fashion to what the OP may want from this tag.

I get the want for a tag like this, but where would we draw the line in the sand when it comes to x_penetrating tags for body types? muscular, athletic, voluptuous, overweight, slim, stocky, chubby, curvaceous, tall, short, should all of these get respective tags?

The bulk update request #80 (forum #292262) has been rejected by @Millcore.