I've got a question about beaks. Since a beak is just the mouth/lips of a (usually avian-like) creature, the idea of a beakjob tag comes off as weird, like mouthjob or lipjob. Isn't it just oral with a character that happens to have a beak? That beakjob then implicates beak_sex which implicates beak_play which implicates beak_fetish, comes off as wrong, since the beak doesn't have to be fetishized, it's just what the character happens to have for a mouth when doing oral. It'd be like having a snout_fetish tag applied to every character with a snout giving a "snoutjob " (i.e. oral with a snout).

Consequently, beak_sex is just mouth_sex or lip_sex that just happen to have a beak, while there's not a snout_sex for characters that happen to have a snout. Beak_play could make sense, if it's kept to scenarios where the beak is specifically played with in a sexual manner (like mouth_play), where the beak is specifically fetishized. But if beakjob and beak_sex are kept as implications for general oral sex with a character that happens to have a beak, that heavily dilutes the play/fetish aspect and just means oral+beak.

One possible consideration is the fact that beaks are hard while lips are soft, which may have different implications for oral. That, and beak oral has fairly mixed results, as the character with the beak may be the one receiving the oral, or even a bystander. beakjob would be the only tag that guarantees that the beak is involved in oral.

Besides that, I don’t see much reason to keep this, and it may be up for debate as to whether or not the above situation warrants keeping the tag.

scaliespe said:
One possible consideration is the fact that beaks are hard while lips are soft, which may have different implications for oral. That, and beak oral has fairly mixed results, as the character with the beak may be the one receiving the oral, or even a bystander. beakjob would be the only tag that guarantees that the beak is involved in oral.

I could see keeping beak_sex for sexual acts that happen to involve a beak, which could then be beak_sex oral, making beakjob largely redundant. But the bigger issue is the implication to beak_play/beak_fetish. This causes posts that don't fetishize the beak and the beak is incidental, to be tagged as beak_play/beak_fetish due solely to species or character design rather than the point or focus of the act. Sometimes you can't even see it.

watsit said:
I could see keeping beak_sex for sexual acts that happen to involve a beak, which could then be beak_sex oral, making beakjob largely redundant. But the bigger issue is the implication to beak_play/beak_fetish. This causes posts that don't fetishize the beak and the beak is incidental, to be tagged as beak_play/beak_fetish due solely to species or character design rather than the point or focus of the act. Sometimes you can't even see it.

That seems like a reasonable solution, then. Beakjob could possibly even be left as-is, implying both beak_sex and oral, and simply remove the beak_sex -> beak_play implication.