The tag implication #35359 penis_in_penis -> penis_in_urethra has been rejected.

Reason: It is logically sound, because of the existing implication from penis_in_penis to urethral_penetration. See the hierarchy on the penis_in_penis wiki page.

EDIT: The tag implication penis_in_penis -> penis_in_urethra (forum #299462) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Could penis_in_penis be mistaken with docking? Otherwise, seems fine to me.

faucet said:
Could penis_in_penis be mistaken with docking? Otherwise, seems fine to me.

My understanding is that docking implies penetration to a sheath or foreskin, which would be separate from the urethral penetration described and implied here.

+1👍 : Basically, there would be no other way.

But, What about in this case? Someone please tell me.
※ This is penis_maw ( or penis_mouth )
post #2493974

gloomy_wing said:
+1👍 : Basically, there would be no other way.

But, What about in this case? Someone please tell me.
※ This is penis_maw ( or penis_mouth )
post #2493974

Hmm, I would suggest want for a flipped implication since the above is one of the weird cases, as well as the possibility that penis_in_penis might refer to foreskin_play docking.
post #2304527 post #2333316

thegreatwolfgang said:Hmm, I would suggest want for a flipped implication...

Thank you.
There're things that is penis_in_penis but Not penis_in_urethra ( so "docking" may count as "in" ).

Then : 😐？