The bulk update request #3164 is pending approval.

remove implication cock_vore (7343) -> penis (1556699)

Reason: Case in point.
post #3522127 post #2457787 post #2371256

If it's in their balls, would it really be cock_vore?

I think you meant to do unimply, not unalias. cock_vore isn't aliased to penis.

watsit said:
If it's in their balls, would it really be cock_vore?

Even though it’s wrong, the premise of cockvore rides on the assumption that the balls act similar to a stomach.

But if we’re going strictly by visual elements of an image then sure, it’s fine to unimply.

watsit said:
If it's in their balls, would it really be cock_vore?

I think you meant to do unimply, not unalias. cock_vore isn't aliased to penis.

Cock vore treats the balls as the end point of cock vore, there's no other way for a character to end up inside the balls than the urethra of the penis; anyone looking for cock_vore isn't exclusively searching for posts that only depict a character actively in the shaft, so it's only reasonable to tag posts where a character is within the testicles, (unless there's evidence of some other means of entry) as cock_vore. Creating a in_balls or character_in_balls tag (if that doesn't already exist?) would make more sense than removing cock_vore from such posts.

Compare it to more "vanilla" vore: if a character is being swallowed down another character's esophagus, with no other information, we can safely assume it's oral_vore, and not that the character was snorted through the nose or somehow absorbed through the neck.

watsit said:
If it's in their balls, would it really be cock_vore?

I think you meant to do unimply, not unalias. cock_vore isn't aliased to penis.

Nice catch, updated the BUR to unimply.

Bumping, people may want to change their vote now that the BUR is fixed.

Even if cock vore means a character was consumed through the penis, there are a lot of cases where the penis might not be visible. Just like how unbirthing doesn't imply pussy, uterus etc., cock vore shouldn't imply penis.