The tag implication #51507 cum_while_flaccid -> flaccid is pending approval.

Reason: .....

Hmm... Flaccid (unlike erection) implies penis, and a character can be flaccid and cum without the penis being visible if it's covered by underwear or a chastity_cage (EDIT: or fully_sheathed, if that counts?). So the three possible options are:
A) Say this implication is invalid
B) Say cum_while_flaccid requires a visible penis
C) Remove the flaccid -> penis implication

crocogator said:
Hmm... Flaccid (unlike erection) implies penis, and a character can be flaccid and cum without the penis being visible if it's covered by underwear or a chastity_cage. So the three possible solutions are:
A) Say this implication is invalid
B) Say cum_while_flaccid requires a visible penis
C) Remove the flaccid -> penis implication

Wait, a character can be flaccid without penis visible? I get that erection shouldn't imply penis since you can have an underwear tent which strongly implies there's an erection, but if it's covered how can you tell the difference between flaccid and micro penis? (ok maybe a parent post would work)

crocogator said:
B) Say cum_while_flaccid requires a visible penis

This one. It's this one. IMO, cum_while_flaccid shouldn't be used if the character in question isn't actively cumming and clearly flaccid, and it definitely shouldn't be used if the character is chaste (we have cum_while_chaste for that). I'm speaking for myself here but that's not what I'm looking for when I search that tag.

EDIT: The sheath thing throws a wrench into the works. There is a less-used cum_while_sheathed tag, and fully_sheathed isn't aliased to flaccid. Though it may be overkill to split the two into sub-niches.

axakatl said:
This one. It's this one. IMO, cum_while_flaccid shouldn't be used if the character in question isn't actively cumming and clearly flaccid, and it definitely shouldn't be used if the character is chaste (we have cum_while_chaste for that). I'm speaking for myself here but that's not what I'm looking for when I search that tag.

EDIT: The sheath thing throws a wrench into the works. There is a less-used cum_while_sheathed tag, and fully_sheathed isn't aliased to flaccid. Though it may be overkill to split the two into sub-niches.

I'd say cum_while_sheathed is sufficiently different from cum_while_flaccid, I'm not even sure if cum_while_flaccid should be tagged on fully_sheathed posts at all, because I don't think flaccid really applies there. I actually created the cum_while_sheathed tag precisely because flaccid generally doesn't apply to sheathed penises and also because I wanted to be able to find those kinds of posts more easily.

themasterpotato said:
I'd say cum_while_sheathed is sufficiently different from cum_while_flaccid, I'm not even sure if cum_while_flaccid should be tagged on fully_sheathed posts at all, because I don't think flaccid really applies there. I actually created the cum_while_sheathed tag precisely because flaccid generally doesn't apply to sheathed penises and also because I wanted to be able to find those kinds of posts more easily.

That's fair. In that case I'm on board. If it's possible to know a penis is flaccid without it being visible then that's an issue with the flaccid tag (in which case Crocogator's C plan should be implemented), but otherwise I think the B plan makes the most sense.

themasterpotato said:
I actually created the cum_while_sheathed tag precisely because flaccid generally doesn't apply to sheathed penises and also because I wanted to be able to find those kinds of posts more easily.

What about penis tips in genital slits (e.g., post #4224163)?
Although cum_while_flaccid would not be a good fit when flaccid is implied, cum_while_sheathed would be an even worse fit.

thegreatwolfgang said:
What about penis tips in genital slits (e.g., post #4224163)?
Although cum_while_flaccid would not be a good fit when flaccid is implied, cum_while_sheathed would be an even worse fit.

There is something of a precedent for this though. fully_sheathed has more than a few characters with slits, including on the wiki page. Though considering fully_sheathed implies sheath that's likely an oversight.

axakatl said:
There is something of a precedent for this though. fully_sheathed has more than a few characters with slits, including on the wiki page. Though considering fully_sheathed implies sheath that's likely an oversight.

Yeah, I just fixed that. Someone edited the wiki last year to include slits and while the text portion of that edit was quickly reverted at the time, the examples kinda just stuck around until now. For tagging purposes slits aren't sheaths and, like you said, the tag even implies sheath, so it's obviously meant for the latter.

thegreatwolfgang said:
What about penis tips in genital slits (e.g., post #4224163)?
Although cum_while_flaccid would not be a good fit when flaccid is implied, cum_while_sheathed would be an even worse fit.

I'd lean towards cum_while_sheathed only applying to sheaths. I'm not sure if I can come up with an alternative tag name that would fit genital slits though. And on a sidenote, I'm not entirely sure if that post should be tagged cum at all because I think that might be precum/precum_squirt instead.

Would it be that bad to just remove the fully_sheathed -> sheath implication and allow it to be used for slits/cloacae as well? I'm struggling to think of an alternate name, but slits (and cloacae!!) also need to have tags for this sort of situation, IMO.

scaliespe said:
Would it be that bad to just remove the fully_sheathed -> sheath implication and allow it to be used for slits/cloacae as well? I'm struggling to think of an alternate name, but slits (and cloacae!!) also need to have tags for this sort of situation, IMO.

Possibly. There definitely needs to be a tag for it, but I also can't think of anything off the top of my head that doesn't sound way too awkward. On the other hand, sheaths and slits/cloacae aren't exactly the same thing and if I search for a tag that's explicitly called fully sheathed I'm kinda expecting to be looking at sheaths and not slits/cloacae, but I guess that's just my personal preference.

scaliespe said:
Would it be that bad to just remove the fully_sheathed -> sheath implication and allow it to be used for slits/cloacae as well? I'm struggling to think of an alternate name, but slits (and cloacae!!) also need to have tags for this sort of situation, IMO.

IMO no, they should be kept separate! We can call the slit tag fully_slitted or something for now. I know it sounds really stupid, but just temporarily until we think of a good name.

cloudpie said:
IMO no, they should be kept separate! We can call the slit tag fully_slitted or something for now. I know it sounds really stupid, but just temporarily until we think of a good name.

Sounds like a good compromise. Does it include cloaca or should we have a tag like fully_cloacaed [/hj]

/me is confused
I will read it again, later.