Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag implication #42698 vaginal -> pussy has been rejected.
Reason: I noticed that the tags describing acts involving genitals are not related to the actual genital tags. vaginal_penetration might also make sense to have this in place. you can't have "vaginal*" anything without first having a pussy I figure.
EDIT: The tag implication vaginal -> pussy (forum #322231) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.
Updated by auto moderator
"Having" a pussy isn't enough for pussy to get tagged. A pussy needs to be visible in the image in order to get tagged, and it's possible to determine that there is something happening vaginally without a pussy being shown. For example, a censor bar might be covering the pussy, or only a genital outline is present instead of the actual pussy, and I'm sure there's more that I couldn't find.
siral_exan said:
"Having" a pussy isn't enough for pussy to get tagged. A pussy needs to be visible in the image in order to get tagged, and it's possible to determine that there is something happening vaginally without a pussy being shown. For example, a censor bar might be covering the pussy, or only a genital outline is present instead of the actual pussy, and I'm sure there's more that I couldn't find.
makes sense. Thank you for clarification!
The tag implication vaginal -> pussy (forum #322231) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.
