The tag implication #42804 penises_crossing -> frottage has been rejected.

Reason: Crossing penises seems to involve frottage in all the (few) images with the tag. Maybe penises_crossing is too vague and should be aliased to frottage instead? I don't have an opinion personally.

EDIT: The tag implication penises_crossing -> frottage (forum #323007) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

An implication isn't right since penises can cross without it being frottage:
post #3049453 post #2760219 post #1483131
Frottage is when "two characters press and rub their erect penises together", but penises can cross when penises are just lying together without being actively pressed, or as in the case of the second and third examples, when they're not even touching but they appear crossed at the given viewpoint.

You're right. My bad, I hadn't read the wiki thoroughly enough.

Would the implication penises_crossing -> penis_on_penis be valid?

interstition said:
You're right. My bad, I hadn't read the wiki thoroughly enough.

Would the implication penises_crossing -> penis_on_penis be valid?

Not as it is, since in those last two examples, the penises aren't touching. They just appear crossed from out viewpoint.

Thanks for your help. Is there a way for me to retract the implication request?

The tag implication penises_crossing -> frottage (forum #323007) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.