The bulk update request #3976 is pending approval.

create alias shared_masturbator (10) -> sharing_masturbator (0) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR
create implication sharing_masturbator (0) -> penetrable_sex_toy (7979)
create implication sharing_masturbator (0) -> sharing_sex_toy (896)

EDIT: Added alias to sharing_masturbator to match existing shared_sex_toy alias. Blocking implication is at topic #34164.

Reason: By usage, this tag refers to the subset of sharing_sex_toy that specifically involves the penetrable variety (as opposed to double_dildos or anal_beads). shared_masturbator -penetrable_sex_toy had only three results, of which only post #3690178 didn't fit the definition. Meanwhile, there are vastly more posts featuring two characters sharing a single egg_vibrator that have never been tagged shared_masturbator such as this this this this this this and this, and that's just what I found in egg_vibrator frottage.

If you object to this implication, you are arguing that all sex toys are in fact "masturbators", so you must voice your support for an alias to sharing_sex_toy as well.

For what it's worth, most of the posts in sharing_sex_toy -anal_beads -penetrable_sex_toy -double_dildo are simply missing one of those tags.

It's not often I don't bother checking the forum first, but somehow every time I don't I regret it. Not only is there a duplicate, but I didn't even see the recently-approved topic #24796 which is directly in support of this definition.

shared_masturbator sounds like it could also apply to a double-ended dildo, or a symmetric set of anal beads that's used at both ends simultaneously, which wouldn't be a penetrable sex toy. It also sounds like it's referring to the thing, not an act, so it doesn't necessarily mean sharing_sex_toy will always apply.

I thought that masturbators were toys that automatically simulate thrusting et al?

watsit said:
shared_masturbator sounds like it could also apply to a double-ended dildo, or a symmetric set of anal beads that's used at both ends simultaneously, which wouldn't be a penetrable sex toy.

So you are of the opinion that "masturbator" is another word for "dildo"?

watsit said:
It also sounds like it's referring to the thing, not an act, so it doesn't necessarily mean sharing_sex_toy will always apply.

What the hell does this even mean?

alphamule said:
I thought that masturbators were toys that automatically simulate thrusting et al?

As long as you put your dick in it, it's still a penetrable_sex_toy by definition, no?

wat8548 said:
So you are of the opinion that "masturbator" is another word for "dildo"?

Dildo, fleshlight, etc. Something you would use to masturbate with.

wat8548 said:
What the hell does this even mean?

That "shared masturbator" sounds like the name of a thing, not an act. So there could be a double-ended dildo or double-sided fleshlight or other such thing lying on a bed not being used. You would see/tag a "shared masturbator" then, but characters wouldn't be using it so sharing_sex_toy wouldn't apply.

watsit said:
Dildo, fleshlight, etc. Something you would use to masturbate with.

What is the distinction between this and "sex toy", especially if anal beads are also included?

watsit said:
That "shared masturbator" sounds like the name of a thing, not an act. So there could be a double-ended dildo or double-sided fleshlight or other such thing lying on a bed not being used. You would see/tag a "shared masturbator" then, but characters wouldn't be using it so sharing_sex_toy wouldn't apply.

It really doesn't. I can't think of a single other object that we tag with a verb like that. Generally speaking, when verbs get involved in tags, that means characters have to be doing the thing.

wat8548 said:
What is the distinction between this and "sex toy", especially if anal beads are also included?

Sex toys that are used on another (e.g. strap-ons) wouldn't be a masturbator since they're not for masturbating.

wat8548 said:
It really doesn't. I can't think of a single other object that we tag with a verb like that. Generally speaking, when verbs get involved in tags, that means characters have to be doing the thing.

Which is why the shared_masturbator -> sharing_sex_toy looks wrong. Sharing, being a verb, means the characters have to be sharing, while a shared masturbator, an object, doesn't have to be actively shared. I'm not sure what the confusion is?

Hmm... On Bad Dragon, "masturbator" means penetrable_sex_toy. I'm not sure if I've ever encountered the word, except in discussions of Bad Dragon toys. It doesn't seem to be a common word. I checked two competitors to Bad Dragon, and they don't use the word at all. Searching "masturbator" on Amazon returns a bunch of penetrable sex toys. Meanwhile, checking the few dictionaries that have a relevant definition for word, such as Wiktionary, they all use the same vague definition word-for-word, which is vague enough to include dildos.

A sex toy used to complement and help stimulate its user's erogenous zone(s) during masturbation, and often designed to simulate an erotic body part (of an imaginary partner).

But has anyone ever actually referred to a dildo or other non-penetrable sex toy as a "masturbator"? I'm not sure. I've certainly never seen it used that way.

crocogator said:
But has anyone ever actually referred to a dildo or other non-penetrable sex toy as a "masturbator"? I'm not sure. I've certainly never seen it used that way.

It's certainly not a word I remember encountering before. But it's not uncommon for English to build words in the style of "verbor" to mean 'a thing that does/aids in doing verb'. E.g. a compressor is a thing that compresses, a rotor is a thing that rotates, a trash compactor is a thing that helps compact trash. So, a masturbator would be a thing that (helps) masturbate.

watsit said:
Sex toys that are used on another (e.g. strap-ons) wouldn't be a masturbator since they're not for masturbating.

Your argument gets less coherent by the sentence. Does this mean that a double dildo ceases to be a masturbator as soon as one character is actively shoving it into another one?

watsit said:
Which is why the shared_masturbator -> sharing_sex_toy looks wrong. Sharing, being a verb, means the characters have to be sharing, while a shared masturbator, an object, doesn't have to be actively shared. I'm not sure what the confusion is?

Well, for one thing, there's no such thing as an object being "inactively shared". Either it is shared, or it isn't. If we can't see sharing, we can't tag sharing, end of.

wat8548 said:
Your argument gets less coherent by the sentence. Does this mean that a double dildo ceases to be a masturbator as soon as one character is actively shoving it into another one?

I'm not sure what's lacking coherency. Can you explain?

A double dildo wouldn't cease to be a masturbator due to one character actively shoving it into another, anymore than a katana would stop being a weapon as soon as someone uses it to chop some vegetables. They're designed for someone to use it on themselves, even if a character can use it on another.

wat8548 said:
Well, for one thing, there's no such thing as an object being "inactively shared". Either it is shared, or it isn't. If we can't see sharing, we can't tag sharing, end of.

Though an object can be designed to be shared, to be used by more than one person at a time. The "shared" part of shared_masturbator can be (and is how I originally did) interpreted as an adjective, defining an extra property to the following noun, rather than a verb indicating how it's currently used. If it's meant to be a verb instead of an adjective, perhaps aliasing shared_masturbator -> sharing_masturbator would be a good thing to do (like how shared_sex_toy is aliased to sharing_sex_toy).

watsit said:
I'm not sure what's lacking coherency. Can you explain?

A double dildo wouldn't cease to be a masturbator due to one character actively shoving it into another, anymore than a katana would stop being a weapon as soon as someone uses it to chop some vegetables. They're designed for someone to use it on themselves, even if a character can use it on another.

Earlier you claimed that anal beads fall under the umbrella of "masturbator". Can you explain the qualitative difference between a set of anal beads "designed" to be used on oneself and beads "designed" to be used on another?

watsit said:
Though an object can be designed to be shared, to be used by more than one person at a time. The "shared" part of shared_masturbator can be (and is how I originally did) interpreted as an adjective, defining an extra property to the following noun, rather than a verb indicating how it's currently used. If it's meant to be a verb instead of an adjective, perhaps aliasing shared_masturbator -> sharing_masturbator would be a good thing to do (like how shared_sex_toy is aliased to sharing_sex_toy).

Your interpretation does not appear to be a popular one. Even the tags on that list like shared_bathroom, something that is usually understood as a concept that can exist independently of the people sharing it, has only been tagged on images with multiple people in the same room.

shared_condom is the closest relative of this tag, although I note shared_gag has even had an implication set up. (There is a condom_sharing tag but it's far less popular and entirely overlaps.)

The alias would probably be a good idea, to match the parent tag if nothing else. I'm just sick of implications getting derailed by objections which have nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental correctness of the concept. Imagine how much more work we could all get done if we didn't waste so much time bikeshedding about shit that doesn't matter even within the highly specific circumstances of the request.

There are a lot of posts (likely more than tagged here) featuring characters sharing a penetrable sex toy, a concept that can be easily and uniquely visually identified and therefore is eligible for a tag. What the tag is called is significantly less important, until and unless you can prove there has been a problem with widespread misuse, and even then it can be renamed. 1 post out of 349 does not a problem make.

EDIT: In fact, since you know so much about strapons, instead of continuing to waste all of our time in this thread, why don't you volunteer to finally sort out the hideous mess that is the sex_toy_insertion tag hierarchy?

wat8548 said:
Earlier you claimed that anal beads fall under the umbrella of "masturbator". Can you explain the qualitative difference between a set of anal beads "designed" to be used on oneself and beads "designed" to be used on another?

Well, obviously one would be designed to make it easier for a person to use on themselves, while the other would be designed to be used by another on someone. I have no idea what physical difference, if any, they would have. I'm not a sex toy expert, I'm just giving my thoughts and opinion on the given request.

wat8548 said:
Your interpretation does not appear to be a popular one. Even the tags on that list like shared_bathroom, something that is usually understood as a concept that can exist independently of the people sharing it, has only been tagged on images with multiple people in the same room.

More than that, a number of tags like shared_sex_toy, shared_clothing, and shared_scarf have been aliased to sharing_sex_toy, sharing_clothing, and sharing_scarf, likely to avoid the adjective-vs-verb ambiguity 'shared' has, as expressed by these comments.

wat8548 said:
The alias would probably be a good idea, to match the parent tag if nothing else. I'm just sick of implications getting derailed by objections which have nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental correctness of the concept. Imagine how much more work we could all get done if we didn't waste so much time bikeshedding about shit that doesn't matter even within the highly specific circumstances of the request.

Considering what came about because of this "derailment", it was a good thing. Trying to alias the tag after the fact would get more annoying the more implications it already has, so the earlier it can be done, the better. But it does get annoying when I bring up potential issues I see with requests, and you call it "incoherent" or "a conspiracy" because you don't agree and we're obviously not talking on the same wavelength, rather than try to understand the conversation or help others try to understand where you're coming from without berating them. Please don't be so hostile.