The bulk update request #4327 is pending approval.

create implication ffm_threesome (1925) -> threesome (58814)
create implication mmf_threesome (1798) -> threesome (58814)
create implication ffm_threesome (1925) -> male/female (667517)
create implication mmf_threesome (1798) -> male/female (667517)

Reason:
1. They're both threesomes
2. They both inherently involve male/female interaction

These are fairly new tags, but they should be useful for describing the participants of a hetero/bisexual threesome, it's a surprise how little use they have right now.

Should the ffm and mmf tags also be aliased to these, or is it somehow possible for these tags to apply in a way that isn't a threesome?

faucet said:
Should the ffm and mmf tags also be aliased to these, or is it somehow possible for these tags to apply in a way that isn't a threesome?

Having gone through both tags, most of the posts are just threesomes, but it's possible to have safe/questionable scenes where describing the sex composition would make sense (e.g. two male characters kissing a female character).

ffm and mmf are too vaguely named, they ought to go either way. I don't know if they should be aliased to mmf/ffm_threesome and have the non-threesomes pruned, if they should be disambiguated, or if they should be aliased/mass updated to new tags.

Whatever the fate of ffm/mmf, if there are enough relevant non-threesome posts (which is a TWYS friendly concept, so I don't see a problem in "non-threesome sex-composition description tags" ^{whew, that's a mouthful}), I think they should be retagged as mmf_trio and ffm_trioto eliminate some of the ambiguity.

Do we actually need these tags? I believe a whole bunch of the multiple gender tags got aliased away to male/female already due to redundancy.

• m/f/f, male/female/male, m/m/f, female/male/female, m/f/m, male/female/female

This implication suggestion just sounds like the exact same thing, but with threesome tagged on top of it.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Do we actually need these tags?

This implication suggestion just sounds like the exact same thing, but with threesome tagged on top of it.

I vote yes because mmf threesomes and ffm threesomes are significantly different and, unless i'm missing something, there's no tag combination that would return specifically mmf or ffm threesomes. Just mmf or just ffm seem like a relatively common thing someone might search for or even want to blacklist.
(unless it was turned into mmf_trio and ffm_trio, in which case those could be combined with threesome in a search)

thegreatwolfgang said:
Do we actually need these tags? I believe a whole bunch of the multiple gender tags got aliased away to male/female already due to redundancy.

• m/f/f, male/female/male, m/m/f, female/male/female, m/f/m, male/female/female

This implication suggestion just sounds like the exact same thing, but with threesome tagged on top of it.

There's no way of distinguishing the character composition of a male/female threesome without tags to describe it. I don't see any good reason why there shouldn't be tags to help people find specific types of threesomes.

Those other tags were probably aliased away because they're unclear, likely inconsistently or poorly applied, and they could easily cause mistagging of male/female posts that only show a pair of characters, not to mention that tags comprised of only three letters without any clarification (m/f/f or m/m/f) do not make for good tags.

cloudpie said:
I vote yes because mmf threesomes and ffm threesomes are significantly different and, unless i'm missing something, there's no tag combination that would return specifically mmf or ffm threesomes.

maplebytes said:
There's no way of distinguishing the character composition of a male/female threesome without tags to describe it. I don't see any good reason why there shouldn't be tags to help people find specific types of threesomes.

Should there also be tags for herm/gynomorph/andromorph/maleherm combinations? It does seem odd to me to only include male and female, and only for threesomes. Why is it no longer worth a tag when one of the characters is intersex? Or when there's four characters having sex instead of three? Or when all three are the same sex?

This would be an explosive tag combo. And arguably, the more important point is the order of the participants (an m/f/m threesome is different from an m/m/f threesome, the latter implying male bisexuality and the former being two (straight) males on one female). These tags look like they're trying to work around the fact that the m/f/m, male/female/female, etc, tags have been aliased away. Given that those already are aliased away, and the limited scope (no four+somes, no intersex) and dubious usefulness (not preserving participant ordering) of these tags, makes me think these should be aliased away too.

watsit said:
Should there also be tags for herm/gynomorph/andromorph/maleherm combinations? It does seem odd to me to only include male and female, and only for threesomes. Why is it no longer worth a tag when one of the characters is intersex? Or when there's four characters having sex instead of three?

I don't see a problem with mmi_threesome iim_threesome iif_threesome ffi_threesome etc. as tags, personally, if there's enough content to make them necessary. In my opinion having more tags isn't a problem as long as they have a purpose, aren't redundant, and can effectively communicate meaning to users.

Or when all three are the same sex?

That would be covered by tag searches like threesome (fe)male/(fe)male -(fe)male -intersex or threesome intersex/intersex -female -male

And arguably, the more important point is the order of the participants (an m/f/m threesome is different from an m/m/f threesome, the latter implying male bisexuality and the former being two (straight) males on one female).

I disagree that the order of the letters matters at all — mmf_threesome male/male would cover a scene with male bisexuality, for example, so we don't need additional tags to describe a concept that can be covered by combining a just a few tags.

Additionally, having fmf_threesome, ffm_threesome, mfm_threesome and mmf_threesome would almost certainly lead to a nightmare of mistagging, as the order of letters alone likely wouldn't communicate the difference to most users.

Without these tags, there is no good way to describe the composition of a male/female threesome unless characters of the same sex are interacting, male/female female/female threesome would be the equivalent to ffm_threesome but that only works if the two female characters are performing acts on each other in addition to interacting with the male character, a large number of ffm_threesome posts involve collaborative sex where the two female characters are separately interacting with the male. And if you only want say ffm threesomes, searching male/female threesome -male/male isn't going to filter out a lot of two male/one female threesome posts because many don't feature male bisexuality.

These tags look like they're trying to work around the fact that the m/f/m, male/female/female, etc, tags have been aliased away

Those tags are too vaguely named, and very easily could have resulted in a large amount of mistagged posts that only feature two characters. Meanwhile, the tags here explicitly specify that they're threesomes, and because of the tag names, would not immediately come up when a user types male/female.