The bulk update request #712 has been rejected.

remove implication bisexual_sandwich (901) -> sandwich_position (3657)
create implication bisexual_sandwich (901) -> train_position (2591)
create implication totem_pole_position (86) -> train_position (2591)
create implication totem_pole_position (86) -> chair_position (10283)
create alias lucky_pierre (1280) -> train_position (2591)

Reason: sandwich_position is two people facing inwards both penetrating a middle partner. bisexual_sandwich is when you have three people in a row penetrating in a line (male->male->female). Therefore, bisexual_sandwich should instead imply train_position, since it is a more specific instance of that position.

There is also the totem_pole_position, which is the train_position combined with the chair_position

Also added an alias for lucky_pierre which is a term for a middle person in a train position. I felt an alias is better than an implication here since every train_position image would include a lucky_pierre by definition.

EDIT: The bulk update request #712 (forum #305721) has been rejected by @unwholynsfw.

unwholynsfw said:
Reason: sandwich_position is two people facing inwards both penetrating a middle partner. bisexual_sandwich is when you have three people in a row penetrating in a line (male->male->female).

This description is wrong, IMO. A bisexual_sandwich should be a sandwich_position (it's in the name, after all), and a bisexual_train should be a train_position, otherwise there would be no way to tag a bisexual sandwich position (not to mention all the resulting mis-tags of people trying to tag a bisexual sandwich position as bisexual_sandwich, and getting train_position instead).

unwholynsfw said:
There is also the totem_pole_position, which is the train_position combined with the chair_position

These are more of a sandwich position than a train position, but is still a totem pole position:
post #598340 post #2610720

unwholynsfw said:
Also added an alias for lucky_pierre which is a term for a middle person in a train position.

According to the wiki, it's "The person in the middle position of a threesome." Not necessarily a train position.

unwholynsfw said:
sandwich_position is two people facing inwards both penetrating a middle partner. bisexual_sandwich is when you have three people in a row penetrating in a line (male->male->female).

Per the example images, can't it be both?

post #72982 post #54580

Thanks for the responses.

This description is wrong, IMO.

Then the wiki pages are wrong. The sandwich_position wiki page explicitly calls out in its description that it is distinct from the train position.

both penetrating partners are on the ends, both facing the middle partner. The one being penetrated is always between them in the middle, being penetrated by both (front and back partner).

...

Do not confuse with the somewhat similar train position. In the train position, all the partners line up facing the same direction, front to back, and penetrate whoever is in front of them much like the linked boxcars on a train. The last one being penetrated can face either direction.

IMO the differences aren't the directions people are facing, but the "chain of penetration". In the images you've posted, the penetration is going top->middle->bottom. Whereas in the sandwich_position definition posted in the wiki, it should be top->middle<-bottom.

Both outer partners penetrating center partner:

post #1401008

Center partner is penetrating outer partner:

post #54580

unwholynsfw said:
Then the wiki pages are wrong. The sandwich_position wiki page explicitly calls out in its description that it is distinct from the train position.

Yes, they're in need of some rewriting. The descriptions actually make it sound like a train position can be a sandwich position (in a train position, "The last one being penetrated can face either direction", so the two outer characters can face the middle, like in a sandwich position), despite the sandwich position saying it's not a train position.

unwholynsfw said:
IMO the differences aren't the directions people are facing, but the "chain of penetration". In the images you've posted, the penetration is going top->middle->bottom. Whereas in the sandwich_position definition posted in the wiki, it should be top->middle<-bottom.

Yeah, I don't think positions should be defined by who is penetrating who, but the relative positioning of the participants. Two outer characters facing a middle character should be a sandwich position, regardless of whether the middle character is being penetrated by both ends, or is being penetrated by one end while penetrating the other. Otherwise, posts like
post #54580
would be ambiguous since we can't see whether the female is being penetrated or not. Or if the middle character is simultaneously penetrated from both ends while penetrating one or both ends themself. Similarly, when there can be non-penetrative stimulation (fingering, handjobs, tribadism, frotting), it becomes non-obvious.

Ok, that makes sense.

So, with that in mind, the tags would ideally look like:

• train_position: All participants facing the same direction
• bisexual_train (new): male->male->female with female facing away
• sandwich_position: Outermost members looking inwards
• bisexual_sandwich: male->male->female with female looking at men

Do you think we'd want penetration-based tags as well since the *_position tags are limited to "the relative positioning of the participants" (when it's obvious in the image)? Something like "penetration_chain" (similar to daisy_chain).

unwholynsfw said:
So, with that in mind, the tags would ideally look like:

• train_position: All participants facing the same direction
• bisexual_train (new): male->male->female with female facing away
• sandwich_position: Outermost members looking inwards
• bisexual_sandwich: male->male->female with female looking at men

Yes. Though those would just be examples... given strap-ons and dexterous use of hands, feet, tails, and other limbs/appendages, other arrangements would be possible. So long as a male is sexually interacting with a male and female, or a female is sexually interacting with a female and male, while in the given position, the tag would apply.

unwholynsfw said:
Do you think we'd want penetration-based tags as well since the *_position tags are limited to "the relative positioning of the participants" (when it's obvious in the image)? Something like "penetration_chain" (similar to daisy_chain).

Perhaps. I suppose it is something some people may be interested in finding specifically, so if you can see or reasonably enough infer penetration, tags for whether penetration goes from one end to the other, or from both ends inward, could be helpful. Given things like diphalism and tail play, there could be some rather crazy arrangements aside from those, too.

Opened this because I knew it would be the sandwich arguments again.
Even if the train vs sandwich arguments reach an official resolution, the fact there was so much confusion in the first place should disqualify bisexual_sandwich from having either implication.

magnuseffect said:
Even if the train vs sandwich arguments reach an official resolution, the fact there was so much confusion in the first place should disqualify bisexual_sandwich from having either implication.

I'd say the confusion is largely a result of the incorrect wiki, and it providing non-sandwich_position examples and description. All of the times I've seen the argument come up, it's always "the wiki says this". It otherwise makes no sense for bisexual sandwich to be anything other than bisexual activity within a sandwich position. Whether or not a sandwich position can be considered a type of train position, or vice-versa, is a separate issue.

The wiki's first and third example in bisexual sandwich are non-sandwich positions, and it claims it "refers to a very specific position" of male->male<->female (male behind another male, who's behind or facing a female). This ignores female->male<-male (female behind a male, who's facing another male), female->female<-male (female behind another female, who's facing a male), male->female<-female (male behind a female, who's facing another female), male->female<-male (where the two males are interacting with each other across the female), or female->male<-female (females interacting with each other across the male).

I knew it would be the sandwich arguments again

My bad :)

The bulk update request #712 (forum #305721) has been rejected by @unwholynsfw.