Implicating Erection → Aroused
Link to implication

Reason:

Having an erection implies arousal. The female version of this would be a wet vagina, but on this site, there's no distinction between a vagina that's wet of arousal and a vagina that's wet of a glass of water spilled onto it.

Asphyxia said:
Implicating Erection → Aroused
Link to implication

Reason:

Having an erection implies arousal. The female version of this would be a wet vagina, but on this site, there's no distinction between a vagina that's wet of arousal and a vagina that's wet of a glass of water spilled onto it.

I'm not sure. Here are some pics with erection but without arousal:

post #145799 post #60078 post #221017

But the aroused tag is definitely undertagged. At least I never remember to tag it in my posts.

What about rigor mortis?

I really dont think we need an aroused tag

That tag's been around for years, and it's still massively undertagged.
I'm not sure what we need it for, myself.. Seems too broad to be of much use.

So should we delete the tag to keep things clean?

At this point, I think we could safely invalidate aroused.

It is hard to define (there's various degrees of arousal in most explicit images), and the way it is tagged, it's just a random mix of other tags: erection, bedroom_eyes, seductive, naughty_face, inviting, presenting, etc.

Genjar said:
At this point, I think we could safely invalidate aroused.

It is hard to define (there's various degrees of arousal in most explicit images), and the way it is tagged, it's just a random mix of other tags: erection, bedroom_eyes, seductive, naughty_face, inviting, presenting, etc.

+1 to this.

At the very least it should be torn apart every now and then. There are definitely various definitions and there isn't really a good way to narrow the definition and provide something that other tags cannot.