Been looking for a tag for the insertion of a dildo into an character and the wikis are just making me frustrated.
Most of the insertion tags have been aliased to their respective penetration tags, yet there seems to be some tags left behind.
The wikis are just really messy at the moment with everybody seemingly having different opinions on the position of sex_toys.

• Object_insertion wiki statess that "...an object inserted in one of their orifices excluding sex toys".
• But multiple_insertions wiki states that "...being penetrated by at least three objects in the same orifice at the same time" and that "dildos, vibrators, anal_beads or other objects are often used as well".
• Multi_penetration wiki states that "...penetrating something with two or more appendages (penises, tentacles, etc.) — not objects".
• But penetration wiki states that "...a body part (penis, fist, tail) or object (dildo, buttplug, random objects) is put into a character's body".

I want to suggest bringing back the insertion tags for its use in general objects (e.g., pens, eggs, improvised_sex_toys, etc) and certain sex toys (i.e. anal_beads, vibrator, buttplug) and leave penetration tags for its use with penises and specific sex toys (i.e. dildo, strapon).

What does everybody think about this? If there was any prior discussions in regards to this, do link it below.

Huh, I didn't know object_insertion exists... +1 to this. Now I have to fix my mistakes on posts with anal beads, buttplugs and improvised sex toys tagged with anal_penetration... -_-

Oh, and also maybe create a BUR for these tags surrounding the former.

monsterbomb10010 said:
Huh, I didn't know object_insertion exists... +1 to this. Now I have to fix my mistakes on posts with anal beads, buttplugs and improvised sex toys tagged with anal_penetration... -_-

Oh, and also maybe create a BUR for these tags surrounding the former.

Wait! Your tags are technically correct under the penetration wiki definition, and by extension anal_penetration.
I'm just bringing this up as insertion sits on the edge of being used/invalidated.

I'll do a thorough reading for all the penetration/insertion wikis for the BUR once I know everybody's opinion about it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Wait! Your tags are technically correct under the penetration wiki definition, and by extension anal_penetration.

Ah, ok! I'm currently too lazy fixing my tags though, but thanks for the response!

For the sake of the x_penetrating_y tags (male penetrating female, anthro penetrating anthro, etc.), would they still apply if a character is using an object on another character? *_penetrating improvised_sex_toy has a few false positives but also some relevant examples.

post #1894736 post #1835825 post #1932552

strikerman said:
For the sake of the x_penetrating_y tags (male penetrating female, anthro penetrating anthro, etc.), would they still apply if a character is using an object on another character? *_penetrating improvised_sex_toy has a few false positives but also some relevant examples.

post #1894736 post #1835825 post #1932552

No, for the sake of tagging and general penetration use, I think it's best if we excluded unconventional items or body parts.
For example, sounding does not imply urethral_penetration, nor does anal_fisting/vaginal_fisting imply anal_penetration/vaginal_penetration.
In these cases, anything that is not a genitalia or dildo or tentacle should be tagged with insertion.

I feel that when people search penetration, they want to see traditional penile_penetration, tentacle_sex, and maybe the dildo.

thegreatwolfgang said:
For example, sounding does not imply urethral_penetration, nor does anal_fisting/vaginal_fisting imply anal_penetration/vaginal_penetration.

For the specific case of x_penetrating_y, I do think there is value in allowing that for otherwise not-technically-penetrating acts. Given anal_fisting, for example, only the male/female and human_on_anthro type tags would be applied, but since there's no difference with female/male and anthro_on_human (they're aliased to the respective former), there's no indication of who's being fisted, which users might be interested in for searching or blacklisting purposes. I suppose you could add new x_fisting_y tags with their respective implications (x_fisting, y_fisted, etc), but that would create a good number of new tags for each of the various insertion acts.

watsit said:
For the specific case of x_penetrating_y, I do think there is value in allowing that for otherwise not-technically-penetrating acts.

Initially, I had thought for a x_inserting_y tag, but the name really bugs me and there's no easy of widespread implementation.
So, I decided it be best to exclude anything that is not your genitals, dildo (i.e. stimulated genitals), or tentacle.

Imagine, if someone created like a fake fist/giant pole with a fist as the hilt, and used that to "fist" a character.
It would technically be fisting and therefore penetration, but then it would break my improvised_sex_toy as insertion-only rule.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Imagine, if someone created like a fake fist/giant pole with a fist as the hilt, and used that to "fist" a character.
It would technically be fisting and therefore penetration, but then it would break my improvised_sex_toy as insertion-only rule.

If it's not a real fist, wouldn't that be considered an improvised_sex_toy? A penis dildo isn't a penis, so a fist dildo wouldn't be a fist.

watsit said:
If it's not a real fist, wouldn't that be considered an improvised_sex_toy? A penis dildo isn't a penis, so a fist dildo wouldn't be a fist.

That's why I say that fists (both real & fake) would need to be considered as insertion.
A fake penis, on the other hand, would not be "improvised" per se as it would just be a dildo.

Think of it this way, we want to classify two types of "things" can be inserted into an orifice: either 'natural' and 'unnatural'.
Ignoring both oral & anal at the moment, you would think that vaginal_penetration would be for things that the pussy will 'naturally' accommodate (i.e. a penis, either fake or real since there's really no difference).
But a fist, entire arm, foot, pen, icicle, baseball bat, tiny person/micro, and maybe tail are examples of things that would seem 'unnatural' to be inserted in a pussy.

I understand that this is a very subjective way of determining what's suitable for penetration, so I would want to include specifics instead of telling people to judge them based on their 'naturality'.
Reiterating my previous point with @Strikerman: I feel that when people search penetration, they want to see traditional penile_penetration, tentacle_sex, and maybe the dildo.

Honestly, I'm really 50/50 on even including dildo as penetration.
If people see that it's best to just group it together with the other sex_toys in object_penetration, then so be it.
That would mean, however, that penetration would only be used in penile_penetration & tentacle_sex.

Bumping this up, need to know more people's opinions about this.
I will be going through making the BUR soon.

We shouldn't dictate what people are using the penetration tag for. The most sane option is to include objects, because it avoids having to maintain two separate tag sets for biological and object scenarios.

As for what you stated in the OP, I don't quite understand what you wrote. You wanted to find dildo tags, but you listed stuff for multiple insertions. We have dildo_penetration as a tag. We even have a multi tag for just objects, and one that is just for biological penetration. In most cases they would share the same tag, so what is the problem there? We have tags with different restrictions that allow us to better refine our search results than if we had just one for everything.

There are tags that serve the same purpose as the insertion tags right now. If you want them to be more useful, then start using them. Insertion isn't going to suddenly have a lot of posts just because it becomes taggable again. It needs people to fill the tags.

Although keep in mind that object_insertion is trying to be a tag for non-sexualzed penetration. object_penetration is the all inclusive base. You will also find tags using the object_in, sex_toy_in, or dildo_in prefixes to find whatever meets your fancy.

thevileone said:
We have dildo_penetration as a tag.

Which honestly I think needs fixing, along with penile_penetration. We have vaginal_penetration for the vagina being penetrated, anal_penetration for the anus being penetrated, oral_penetration for the mouth being penetrated... then there's dildo_penetration and penile_penetration which sounds like a fleshlight scenario and sounding respectively, but isn't according to their wiki pages. There should be a clearer distinction between the thing being penetrated and the thing doing the penetrating.

thevileone said:
We shouldn't dictate what people are using the penetration tag for. The most sane option is to include objects, because it avoids having to maintain two separate tag sets for biological and object scenarios.

If that is the case, we need to remove all instances of biological/object segregation from the wiki pages (e.g., see object_insertion & multi_penetration).

As for what you stated in the OP, I don't quite understand what you wrote. You wanted to find dildo tags, but you listed stuff for multiple insertions. We have dildo_penetration as a tag. We even have a multi tag for just objects, and one that is just for biological penetration. In most cases they would share the same tag, so what is the problem there? We have tags with different restrictions that allow us to better refine our search results than if we had just one for everything.

There are tags that serve the same purpose as the insertion tags right now. If you want them to be more useful, then start using them. Insertion isn't going to suddenly have a lot of posts just because it becomes taggable again. It needs people to fill the tags.

Although keep in mind that object_insertion is trying to be a tag for non-sexualzed penetration. object_penetration is the all inclusive base. You will also find tags using the object_in, sex_toy_in, or dildo_in prefixes to find whatever meets your fancy.

The issue stems from the unclear use and definition of "insertion" among the various wiki articles.
Ideally, all instances of *_insertion should be aliased to *_penetration since we do not want any confusion between those two definitions.

But what we see here is that:

• Insertion
• Multiple_insertions includes both objects and sex toys.
• Object_insertion includes objects but excludes sex toys.
• Penetration
• Penetration includes all body parts and objects/sex toys.
• Multi_penetration includes all body parts but excludes objects/sex toys.

My conundrum with dildo is due to the inconsistent wiki definitions.
Yes, I can name it as dildo_penetration, but definition of "penetration" in multi_penetration excludes dildo.
So how about dildo_insertion? Well, definition of "insertion" in object_insertion excludes dildo.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Reiterating my previous point with @Strikerman: I feel that when people search penetration, they want to see traditional penile_penetration, tentacle_sex, and maybe the dildo.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I search penetration, I expect to see some sort of orifice penetrated by anything. If I want "traditional" penetration, I'd look for the tags you've already listed. Trying to separate insertion and penetration just seems way more confusing than it's worth. Even further, "penetration" already innately gives the connotation of some sort of sexual act, whereas "insertion" doesn't seem to inherently have that (outside of sexual innuendos). So it comes off as strange to me to make sex toys, fisting, and other "nontraditional" forms of penetration separated out to insertion tags.

Edit because I didn't see this when I was typing:

watsit said:
There should be a clearer distinction between the thing being penetrated and the thing doing the penetrating.

I can honestly agree with this. While I can understand the meaning of those tags when I look at them, it seems weird that they have two different meanings yet the same format.

watsit said:
Which honestly I think needs fixing, along with penile_penetration. We have vaginal_penetration for the vagina being penetrated, anal_penetration for the anus being penetrated, oral_penetration for the mouth being penetrated... then there's dildo_penetration and penile_penetration which sounds like a fleshlight scenario and sounding respectively, but isn't according to their wiki pages. There should be a clearer distinction between the thing being penetrated and the thing doing the penetrating.

I wanted to point it out as well, i.e. penile_penetration sounds like urethral_penetration while sex_toy_penetration sounds like penetrable_sex_toy penetration. But I'm gonna leave the argument about naming out because my main concern now is with the revival or removal of insertion.

The tag wiki at the present moment is very much a mess. There's not a whole lot of agreement nor standardization on a lot of things, but fixing that is a massive project that I'm not willing to think about right now. At the very least, we can rewrite the definitions/wiki pages for tags one tag group at a time.

Here's what I believe,
"insertion" should be used for penetrators (i.e. sex_toy_insertion (for dildos and the like), penis_insertion)
"penetration" should be used for orifices (i.e. sex_toy_penetration (for fleshlights), penis_penetration (sounding)).

I just got done making some additions to tag group:penetration tags, and the two terms being used synonymously fucks with my small brain when trying to parse in the editing mode. I believe making the distinction in this way, and editing the wiki to reflect this distinction, will make understanding the meaning of the tags at a glance much easier.

Also, making this distinction could potentially allow for tags such as
multi_insertion - For multiple orifices being penetrated simultaneously (post #1471578)
multi_penetration - For the same orifice being penetrated by multiple items (post #2453391)
Which notably are not mutually exclusive.

The bulk update request #547 is pending approval.

create implication herm_penetrating_intersex (506) -> herm_penetrating (2902)
create alias predator_penetrating_prey (552) -> prey_penetrated (286)
create alias pred_penetrating_prey (0) -> prey_penetrated (286)
create alias predator_penetrating (276) -> prey_penetrated (286)
create alias pred_penetrating (0) -> prey_penetrated (286)
create alias prey_penetrating_predator (570) -> predator_penetrated (425)
create alias prey_penetrating_pred (0) -> predator_penetrated (425)
create alias prey_penetrating (272) -> predator_penetrated (425)
create alias pred_penetrated (1) -> predator_penetrated (425)
create implication prey_penetrated (286) -> penetration (807658)
create implication predator_penetrated (425) -> penetration (807658)
create implication prey_penetrated (286) -> predator/prey (12481)
create implication predator_penetrated (425) -> predator/prey (12481)
create alias multiple_penetration (1437) -> multi_penetration (596)

Reason: - The first four implications I assume were simply missed when someone was implicating <gender>_penetrating tags.
- Much like younger_penetrating is aliased to younger_penetrating_older, I suggest the same be done for the predator/prey penetration tags. There's no predator_penetrating_predator tag, so the only thing predator_penetrating could mean in context is predator_penetrating_prey.
- multiple_penetration is for 4+ insertions and multi_penetration is for 2+ body part insertions. They're extremely similar and I don't know why we need them to be separate. multiple_penetration -sex_toy_penetration should give almost the same results as multi_penetration.

notuncommon said:
BUR

I have nothing against the bur but why is it here and not a separate post. Especially because it has like nothing to do with the thread.

To get to the point. Maybe it's my misconception but to insert x into y you need to penetrate y with x. A difference is there though if something like a egg rotor is inserted it's not penetrating anymore. I see the difference in that case in, is it wholly inside or not. I'm not sure though. Not a native speaker.

Also the wikis truly need a revision, but if you ask me if any of the solutions is really satisfying, I'm not so sure.

Like I said the difference between insertion and penetration lies somewhere else than it being objects or not or being penile or tentacles or not. Penetration implicates insertion.

Another point stated here the inconsistency between *_penetration tags. The wrong tags just need to be changed to penetrating and not penetration. Actually the other ones could change to penetrated, too, but doesn't really have to IMO.

agiant said:
...

Sorry. I was hella tired yesterday, so my judgement about where the BUR should go may have been a little compromised. It was going to contain more, but I think it's still somewhat related.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I do agree that insertion and penetration are closely related, and that there will be some implications that need to be done.

Also, I agree that using insertion for objects and penetration for body parts seems arbitrary. Rather than trying to make sense of the paradoxical conventional usage of the terms, we ought to just rework them completely. As previously stated, I believe insertion should be used for the thing being inserted, and penetration should be used for the thing being penetrated. We'll just have to edit the tags to reflect this, and the body part/object distinction can be handled elsewhere.

I do like your terminology of using penetrating/penetrated as opposed to insertion/penetration, I hadn't thought of that. Thinking about their usage though, penis_insertion sounds more natural to me than penis_penetrating. We can still alias them though.

notuncommon said:
I do like your terminology of using penetrating/penetrated as opposed to insertion/penetration, I hadn't thought of that. Thinking about their usage though, penis_insertion sounds more natural to me than penis_penetrating. We can still alias them though.

+1

+1 for the intersex penetration tag implications and multi_penetration alias, but not the predator/prey penetration aliases.

I'd prefer this script instead:

alias predator_penetrating_prey -> prey_penetrated
alias predator_penetrating -> prey_penetrated
alias prey_penetrating_predator -> predator_penetrated
alias prey_penetrating -> predator_penetrated

... to follow the size_difference and age_difference penetration tags.

Also, add this script as well:

imply prey_penetrated -> penetration
imply predator_penetrated -> penetration
imply prey_penetrated -> predator/prey
imply predator_penetrated -> predator/prey

monsterbomb10010 said:
...

Well now I feel like a fool.
I made the decision to alias to predator_penetrating_prey because the younger_penetrating_older tag still had a wiki page, so I assumed it to be the primary alias. I feel like wiki pages for tags aliased to something else should be deleted. Only the primary alias should have a page.
Thanks for reminding me to add those implications as well. I'll edit the BUR to reflect your suggestions.

notuncommon said:
Well now I feel like a fool.
I made the decision to alias to predator_penetrating_prey because the younger_penetrating_older tag still had a wiki page, so I assumed it to be the primary alias. I feel like wiki pages for tags aliased to something else should be deleted. Only the primary alias should have a page.
Thanks for reminding me to add those implications as well. I'll edit the BUR to reflect your suggestions.

You're welcome! ^_^

I'm not sure about deleting the aliased tags' wiki though. I have no guts to just replace an entire wiki page with "See insert primary tag here".

monsterbomb10010 said:
You're welcome! ^_^

I'm not sure about deleting the aliased tags' wiki though. I have no guts to just replace an entire wiki page with "See insert primary tag here".

Fortunately, it looks like younger_penetrating_older has the same description as older_penetrated sans the images, so nothing should be lost.

I've noticed that on a lot of wiki pages, they tend to have lists of related tags, which I think is acceptable to a degree, but some of them list an entire tag group worth of tags rather than just linking to the tag group itself. I think it should be common practice to link to tag groups instead of copying them, that way changes to the hierarchy are immediately reflected everywhere. So far, the only wiki page I've "fixed" is for penetration, but before I deleted the list, I made sure to move any novel tag descriptions to a better location.