I was participating in topic #27854, and this question crossed my mind. Essentially, I want penetration tags to be reworked into penetration and insertion tags to remove the ambiguity of what some tags mean (i.e. vaginal_penetration is the penetration of the vagina, but penile_penetration isn't the penetration of the penis, it's the insertion of the penis).

However, you can't have penetration without insertion, and you can't have insertion without penetration, the two tags imply each other. If two tags are mutually implicated, they always appear together on every post, and are essentially just roundabout aliases. I'm not even sure the site supports mutual implications, but if it does, should they almost always be replaced with aliases?

Edit: Also, does anyone have the capacity to create a visual tree graph/pseudoforest/whatever of every implication on the site, or is that not possible?

I'm not even sure the site supports mutual implications

It does not. When I tried to request one a few months ago, I received an antecedent name has already been taken error.

gattonero2001 said:
It does not. When I tried to request one a few months ago, I received an antecedent name has already been taken error.

???
The site does support multiple implications. For example, ^_^ implies both eyes_closed and smile.
It might have given you that error because that implication has already been suggested, though.

notuncommon said:However, you can't have penetration without insertion, and you can't have insertion without penetration, the two tags imply each other. If two tags are mutually implicated, they always appear together on every post, and are essentially just roundabout aliases. I'm not even sure the site supports mutual implications, but if it does, should they almost always be replaced with aliases?

In my opinion, it would be best not to have redundant tags. If two tags always appear together, then one of them isn't necessary.

notuncommon said:
Edit: Also, does anyone have the capacity to create a visual tree graph/pseudoforest/whatever of every implication on the site, or is that not possible?

There was a python script that would build implication chain graphs. But that was before the site update, so it probably does not work anymore.

bitwolfy said:
???
The site does support multiple implications. For example, ^_^ implies both eyes_closed and smile.
It might have given you that error because that implication has already been suggested, though.

You might be confusing mutual for multiple?

bitwolfy said:
???
The site does support multiple implications. For example, ^_^ implies both eyes_closed and smile.
It might have given you that error because that implication has already been suggested, though.

Not "multiple"; "mutual". As in imply X -> Y and imply Y -> X at the same time.

strikerman said: You might be confusing mutual for multiple?

gattonero2001 said: Not "multiple"; "mutual". As in imply X -> Y and imply Y -> X at the same time.

My bad, that is correct.
I'm tired, and can't read >_>

bitwolfy said:
My bad, that is correct.
I'm tired, and can't read >_>

That happens to everyone. To me, more often than not, so I'm used to double takes.

Regarding the alias, +1 for insertion -> penetration since the latter is already used much more often.

gattonero2001 said:
It does not. When I tried to request one a few months ago, I received an antecedent name has already been taken error.
...
Regarding the alias, +1 for insertion -> penetration since the latter is already used much more often.

Good to know, thank you!
I agree that for the insertion/penetration tags that would otherwise imply each other, they should just alias to the penetration tag rather than insertion.

bitwolfy said:
...
There was a python script that would build implication chain graphs. But that was before the site update, so it probably does not work anymore.

Thanks! There's so many talented people in this community that I'd be surprised if it hadn't already been made.

There is a difference I believe between penetration and insertion. If something penetrates an insertion is inevitable but if an insertion is the case it doesn't have to be a penetration. For penetration to be the case the thing penetrating needs to be inside and outside at the same time but for an insertion it needs only to be inside. The question is than is the difference enough to keep both of them? Also if insertion would stay I think the resulting tags would be kinda weird sometimes. I wouldn't keep both if they actually mean like the same thing but through another perspective but that is already off the table I think, right?