The bulk update request #1232 has been rejected.
remove implication doggystyle (52709) -> all_fours (103096)
Reason:
1. doggystyle and ferals
Given the namesake, it seems like a given that ferals will engage in doggystyle. Indeed, doggystyle feral_on_feral has over 40 pages of results. However, the all_fours wiki is quite explicit:
This tag should not be used on feral creatures that normally walk on all fours.
A recent thread has reinforced this. However, if ferals should not be tagged with all_fours, then why do all of those feral_on_feral posts have the all_fours tag? The implication of doggystyle to all_fours contradicts the common-sense usage of the sex position (that it can be applied to ferals) and the wiki for all_fours itself. Unless the consensus is instead to ban ferals from the doggystyle tag, the tidiest solution to the contradiction is to remove the implication.
2. How many limbs need to be on the ground?
If you scroll through doggystyle posts, you'll very quickly find many, many, many, many, etc. posts where not all four of the bottom's limbs are exactly resting on the ground. They all fit the format of the doggystyle otherwise, with one person kneeling bent over on the ground, usually with their ass up, as they're penetrated from behind. And yet, because of the implication, they're all forced to be tagged with all_fours. I don't think posts should be excluded from doggystyle just because the bottom lifts their arm an inch of the ground, or on their butt, or some other place. Maybe someone wants to put forward that all_fours doesn't literally mean all_fours, but I'm not brave enough for that.
EDIT: The bulk update request #1232 (forum #315448) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.
Updated by auto moderator