The bulk update request #2028 is pending approval.

create implication tentacles_past_cervix (1) -> cervical_penetration (4948)
create implication tentacles_past_cervix (1) -> uterus (17300)
create implication tentacles_past_cervix (1) -> internal (73178)

Reason: Tentacles must penetrate to make it past the cervix.

It should also be added to the Tentacle Actions section of tentacles.

However, there could be tentacles inside the womb, without being shown as entering. Should that be another tag, or should this not imply?

tehpronix said:
The bulk update request #2028 is pending approval.

create implication tentacles_past_cervix (1) -> cervical_penetration (4948)
create implication tentacles_past_cervix (1) -> uterus (17300)
create implication tentacles_past_cervix (1) -> internal (73178)

Reason: Tentacles must penetrate to make it past the cervix.

It should also be added to the Tentacle Actions section of tentacles.

However, there could be tentacles inside the womb, without being shown as entering. Should that be another tag, or should this not imply?

I don't think that tentacles_past_cervix is even a valid tag, because it would imply that we would need to add Penis_past_cervix, and all other sorts of tags. Seeing as there's only 2 instances of it, I think it was only used by a single person, which means it's typically not valid.
Validity aside, the internal implication would be excluded as I was able to locate at least one instance of cervical_penetration without having an internal view featuring a tentacle: post #3394982 . Cervix and uterus are also not implied to eachother, so those aren't valid either.