The tag alias #59503 larger_penetrated -> small_top_big_bottom has been rejected.

Reason: These are functionally the same tag: person who is being penetrated (i.e. the bottom) is larger than the person penetrating (i.e. the top).

Tags similar to larger_penetrated like older_penetrated and smaller_male are often misinterpreted/mistagged, while small_top_big_bottom is more explicit and likely to be tagged correctly.

This is distinct from small_dom_big_sub because top != dom, and sub != bottom.

(An inverse of this alias was discussed here forum #351000)

EDIT: The tag alias larger_penetrated -> small_top_big_bottom (forum #351284) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Can we also agree to a sitewide standard that, for the purposes of keeping tag names reasonably concise, top is always a synonym of penetrating and bottom is always a synonym of penetrated? I don't want this thread to devolve into ludicrous straight people discourse like last time.

wat8548 said:
Can we also agree to a sitewide standard that, for the purposes of keeping tag names reasonably concise, top is always a synonym of penetrating and bottom is always a synonym of penetrated?

No, because there's plenty of reasons for "top" to mean physically on top and "bottom" to mean physically underneath, irrespective of any penetration that may or may not be occurring. Smaller on top for example doesn't implicitly involve any penetration. I don't see a way around using these terms to sometimes mean physical positioning, which creates ambiguity for other cases (not to say top and bottom can't ever be used relating to penetration, but it's impossible to also get away from the physical position meaning, so IMO its use for penetration should be minimized, and recognize that things like top_pov/bottom_pov will have completely inverted results regardless of what a user would expect, which makes alternatives like penetrating_pov/penetrated_pov superior).

For this particular request, I think the grammar of the tag makes top/bottom come across more as meaning penetrating/penetrated so it's not a big deal here. I would prefer still avoiding them, but if we're not going to keep larger_penetrated (which implicitly also means smaller_penetrating) I can't think of another way to word it without being excessive.

watsit said:
No, because there's plenty of reasons for "top" to mean physically on top and "bottom" to mean physically underneath, irrespective of any penetration that may or may not be occurring. Smaller on top for example doesn't implicitly involve any penetration. I don't see a way around using these terms to sometimes mean physical positioning, which creates ambiguity for other cases (not to say top and bottom can't ever be used relating to penetration, but it's impossible to also get away from the physical position meaning, so IMO its use for penetration should be minimized...

Personally, I think larger_penetrated is perfectly intuitive and agree that using top/bottom terminology is generally a bad idea. But I also understand the concerns from the previous thread about larger_penetrated being mistagged like larger_male, where "larger" is misinterpreted as "larger than average" instead of "larger than one's partner."

Maybe the solution is something like smaller_penetrating_larger which sounds silly and redundant, but is perhaps foolproof?

i thought 'top' and 'bottom' were used for BDSM stuff. the 'top' is the one in control regardless of physical position or whether they are the penetrator or the penetratee. like, if a fmeale was on her back and she had a big guy with a leash over her and she was pulling him down to make him penetrate her, she'd still be the 'top' and he'd be the 'bottom', right? i can't agree with 'top' being synonymous with 'penetrating'.

sparkmane said:
i thought 'top' and 'bottom' were used for BDSM stuff...

Dominant and submissive is for BDSM. Often mixed up tags.

The tag alias larger_penetrated -> small_top_big_bottom (forum #351284) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Small_top_big_bottom is now tagged on 1.8k images and its wiki definition, as far as I can tell, is exactly the same as larger_penetrated (the official tag with implications). Would it be ok to alias small_top_big_bottom -> larger_penetrated?

cloudpie said:
Small_top_big_bottom is now tagged on 1.8k images and its wiki definition, as far as I can tell, is exactly the same as larger_penetrated (the official tag with implications). Would it be ok to alias small_top_big_bottom -> larger_penetrated?

If that's how it's being used the vast majority of the time, that would make sense to me.