Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: penis_in_pussy -> penis

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

scaliespe

Admin

If you can’t tag penis in an image, it doesn’t make sense to tag penis_in_pussy, either. How do you know the guy’s not a nullo, and she’s just sitting on his crotch? How do you know there’s not some other object in there? I mean, you can *reasonably assume,* but if you’re tagging based on reasonable assumptions and not just what’s actually visible in the image, might as well tag penis as well based on reasonable assumption.

CrocoGator

Member

strikerman said:
you can see the pussy lips in the second angle

My point is that you can't see a penis. This thread is proposing the implication penis_in_pussy -> penis.

scaliespe said:
If you can’t tag penis in an image, it doesn’t make sense to tag penis_in_pussy, either. How do you know the guy’s not a nullo, and she’s just sitting on his crotch? How do you know there’s not some other object in there? I mean, you can *reasonably assume,* but if you’re tagging based on reasonable assumptions and not just what’s actually visible in the image, might as well tag penis as well based on reasonable assumption.

My understanding has always been that sex acts, unlike genitalia, ARE tagged based on reasonable assumptions when the sex position is visible. I believe this is the reason penile does not imply penis.
post #1120327 <- This is tagged sex and marked as rating:explicit, even though no genitals or sexual fluids are visible.
So in my mind, since sex acts can be tagged based off reasonable assumptions, the question is "is penis_in_pussy the name of a sex act?". I suppose this is a somewhat subjective argument about semantics. Out of curiosity, I looked up how this issue was resolved for penis_in_mouth, but that tag is dealt with differently. penis_in_mouth is aliased to oral.

Updated

monroethelizard

Member

crocogator said:
My point is that you can't see a penis. This thread is proposing the implication penis_in_pussy -> penis.

My understanding has always been that sex acts, unlike genitalia, ARE tagged based on reasonable assumptions when the sex position is visible. I believe this is the reason penile does not imply penis.
post #1120327 <- This is tagged sex and marked as rating:explicit, even though no genitals or sexual fluids are visible.
So in my mind, since sex acts can be tagged based off reasonable assumptions, the question is "is penis_in_pussy the name of a sex act?". I suppose this is a somewhat subjective argument about semantics. Out of curiosity, I looked up how this issue was resolved for penis_in_mouth, but that tag is dealt with differently. penis_in_mouth is aliased to oral.

Say we treat "penis_in_x" as the name of a sex act, and thus it can be tagged based on reasonable assumptions whereas genitalia tags cannot be applied by this standard. I can imagine a scenario in which the tag penis_in_penis could reasonably be assumed to apply even in the absence of visible penises. Perhaps the crotches of two characters are not visible, but one of them is saying something like, "Oh, your cock feels so good inside mine," and the body positions clearly imply that urethral penetration is occurring.

In this hypothetical image, no penises are visible. So the tag penis could not be applied, whereas the tag penis_in_penis could be applied. Yet the penis_in_penis tag implicates penis! And this seems right -- it's borderline absurd to think that you could have an image tagged penis_in_penis without being tagged penis.

If penis_in_penis implicates penis (and it does), then we cannot apply a double-standard to penis_in_pussy. The existing standard for the penis_in_penis tag is a strong precedent for penis_in_pussy to implicate penis. Reasonable assumptions in the absence of direct visual evidence should not apply to some "penis_in_x" tags but not others. I support the implication request in this thread.

  • 1