Implicating ridiculous_fit → size_play
Link to implication

Reason:

I can't think of any instances where ridiculous_fit wouldn't count as size play...

post #408638
post #432512
post #399022
post #177206
post #4175

Just to name a few.

All of those are clearly size play.

Genjar said:
All of those are clearly size play.

No?
Those images don't involve macro, micro, or any "size shifting".
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Sizeplay

Unless we're using some other definition that isn't explained anywhere.

To sum up:

If size play is restricted to macro/micro then implication is bad
If size play includes large insertions, the implication is good
Do we want size play to include those terms?

I say we use an umbrella and keep them separate under it such as size play being the umbrella and then have micro/macro, size difference, ridiculous fit, etc but that's just my opinion on what would work best

Size play doesn't typically include large insertions, and people who enjoy large insertions don't consider it to be "size play".
I don't know why we would add it to our definition of size play here when it's not common usage.

then perhaps use size difference as the umbrella term?

Halite said:
No?
Those images don't involve macro, micro, or any "size shifting".
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Sizeplay

Including, not restricted to.
I've never heard anyone define it in a way that excludes dildos until now, and there's certainly plenty of solo images labelled as sizeplay on FA.

Genjar said:
Including, not restricted to.
I've never heard anyone define it in a way that excludes dildos until now, and there's certainly plenty of solo images labelled as sizeplay on FA.

Not just dildos, hyper isn't size play either, if both characters are of similar size.

Halite said:
Not just dildos, hyper isn't size play either, if both characters are of similar size.

If they're the same size there is no size play. If you're using something larger than normal, it's size play, even if you don't consider it to be. See Bondage being BDSM even if you don't consider it to be BDSM.

Denied because these are two different kinks.
(also forum #143404 addresses how to define "sizeplay" better than the wikifur definition mentioned here).

• Size_play refers to fetishizing the overall size of the participant's body in relation to the other participant's body (things like big_dom_small_sub are examples of sizeplay kink).

• Ridiculous_fit refers to the size of the insertion/penetrating object or penis in relation to the partner it's inserted-in/penetrating (things like large_insertion and ridiculous_fit are this other type of kink).

While there are some cases of mixed usage, the majority of use both on and off this site follows this type of separate definitions. And even places that don't use these exact terms to describe these kinks, still consider them to be separate kinks. These two types of kinks sometimes appeal to the same people, but they do not always overlap:
You can have a hyper_penis character penetrating someone who's body size is roughly the same as theirs: that's not sizeplay. But it can be ridiculous_fit if the penis going in is the size of the penetratee's torso.
Or there can be a big guy penetrating a small guy, but both have average-sized penises: it is sizeplay but it's not ridiculous_fit.

If a character is "proportional", then they may qualify for both sizeplay and ridiculous_fit, but that's far from guaranteed enough to be implicated.

size_difference was also mentioned in this discussion, so it bears mentioning that size_difference also refers to the height or overall body size difference. The difference is that it includes non-sexual body size differences while sizeplay is for when it's sexualized/fetishized in some way.