The tag implication #50308 reverse_stand_and_carry_position -> standing_sex has been approved.

Reason: reverse_stand_and_carry_position is, by definition, sex while standing (and carrying) (and reversed, i.e., facing the same direction). I coulda sworn I'd already made this exact request but apparently I'm half-remembering topic #28765 lol

EDIT: The tag implication reverse_stand_and_carry_position -> standing_sex (forum #359519) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

deleuzian_cattery said:
Reason: reverse_stand_and_carry_position is, by definition, sex while standing (and carrying) (and reversed, i.e., facing the same direction).

I'm gonna raise the same argument I have made on topic #30530.
Characters can be in this exact position while also NOT be having sex (i.e., imminent_sex or after_sex scenarios).

post #3825982 post #3825988 post #3865266

thegreatwolfgang said:
I'm gonna raise the same argument I have made on topic #30530.
Characters can be in this exact position while also NOT be having sex (i.e., imminent_sex or after_sex scenarios).

This applies to every other *_position -> sex implication, of which there are a fair few.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I'm gonna raise the same argument I have made on topic #30530.
Characters can be in this exact position while also NOT be having sex (i.e., imminent_sex or after_sex scenarios).

post #3825982 post #3825988 post #3865266

Then they're not in the position, they're just being carried.

wat8548 said:
This applies to every other *_position -> sex implication, of which there are a fair few.

I am wholly against that, which is why I brought it up in topic #30208. However, it failed to garner enough attention to make for a serious discussion.
The question was also brought up on topic #27413 (also a BUR for *_position -> sex), but only the OP @Strikerman chipped in with their interpretation.

If you searched any *_position ~imminent_sex ~after_sex, you will find tons of posts with no actual sex going on but is tagged as such due to the implication.

strikerman said:
Then they're not in the position, they're just being carried.

I disagree that the absence of sex would magically make it NOT that "sex position".
I don't know where it was decided that the mere fact it is a "sex position" would make it compulsory for sex to be actively occurring.

post #1464054

99% of people will see this as 69_position, I bet they don't even care/know that sex is a prerequisite before tagging it.
It is like saying "Nah, they are not in *_position, they are just awkwardly positioned that way."

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't know where it was decided that the mere fact it is a "sex position" would make it compulsory for sex to be actively occurring.

If they're not having sex, it's not really a sex position, is it?

strikerman said:
If they're not having sex, it's not really a sex position, is it?

If I handed you a dildo, you would probably say it is just a "toy" rather than a "sex_toy" because nobody is using it for sex.

Deviating from the point here, a sex position would enable people to have sex, so it would also apply to imminent_sex scenarios, wouldn't it?

The tag implication reverse_stand_and_carry_position -> standing_sex (forum #359519) has been approved by @gattonero2001.