Aliasing Urethral_insertion -> Urethral_penetration.

Reason: There doesn't seem to be any difference.

Asphyxia said:
Aliasing Urethral_insertion -> Urethral_penetration.

Reason: There doesn't seem to be any difference.

Yeah, they've gotten really messed together. I think originally urethral_penetration was supposed to be used for when someone is actually inserting their penis into someone else's penis. An obscure kink. That's why penis_in_penis is also implicated.

But looks like that distinction got lost when sounding (a type of insertion) got implicated to urethral_penetration which was just wrong. It either needs UNimplicated and seriously cleaned up. Or accept that they're all filled with the same things and alias all three: sounding, urethral_penetration, urethral_insertion. Personally I'd vote for:

• UNimplicating urethral_penetration from <--/-- sounding, and cleaning it up to take it back to its original use. (a penis penetrating another penis's urethra)

• Aliasing sounding to ---> urethral_insertion instead. Because sounding is the slang term for inserting some kind of toy into the urethra, making them the same thing.

• And IF urethral_penetration is cleaned up of any insertion images and implications, then consider aliasing it with penis_in_penis since I kinda don't see a difference between urethral_penetration's original meaning and penis_in_penis's obvious meaning. Although penis_in_penis is more 'what it says on the tin' so maybe it's the better tag to keep. The distinction between insertion vs penetration is well intentioned but gets lost on a lot of people making it somewhat problematic as well. It might be easier to keep things distinct in the long term if we go with the unambiguous version.

Currently all *_insertion tags imply *_penetration. Insertion means penetration by something else than penis, and penetration is for all kind of things.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Currently all *_insertion tags imply *_penetration. Insertion means penetration by something else than penis, and penetration is for all kind of things.

Ok, I just read half a dozen different wikis and forum discussions on the subject. And there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency on whether there's 1, a clear distinction between insertion vs penetration Or 2, if they overlap. And where exactly that distinction or overlap would even be. So that's probably a much bigger issue.

The two biggest theories seem to be 1, they're overlapping and one is a subset of the other. Not always agreeing on which subsets under which though. Or 2, insertion is just for objects/ or non-genitals vs penetration being just for body parts/ or genitals. Things like tails, hands, fingers, tongues, heads, etc seem to be the biggest sticking points between differing points of view. Almost everyone agrees that penis = penetration and inanimate toys = insertion. But beyond that it gets wildly variant. Also, part of it may be a linguistic issue: things have to be inserted before they can penetrate, and anything which penetrates was at some point inserted. That doesn't lend this to an easy distinction between the two.

I suppose an implication would be better than an alias in this case

furrypickle said:
Ok, I just read half a dozen different wikis and forum discussions on the subject. And there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency on whether there's 1, a clear distinction between insertion vs penetration Or 2, if they overlap. And where exactly that distinction or overlap would even be. So that's probably a much bigger issue.

The two biggest theories seem to be 1, they're overlapping and one is a subset of the other. Not always agreeing on which subsets under which though. Or 2, insertion is just for objects/ or non-genitals vs penetration being just for body parts/ or genitals. Things like tails, hands, fingers, tongues, heads, etc seem to be the biggest sticking points between differing points of view. Almost everyone agrees that penis = penetration and inanimate toys = insertion. But beyond that it gets wildly variant. Also, part of it may be a linguistic issue: things have to be inserted before they can penetrate, and anything which penetrates was at some point inserted. That doesn't lend this to an easy distinction between the two.

I think we have enough of a framework now to justify implicating these.