Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag implication #51796 humanoid_penis -> glans has been rejected.
Reason: Penises without glans cannot be tagged "humanoid_penis".
EDIT: The tag implication humanoid_penis -> glans (forum #375912) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.
Updated by auto moderator
This wouldn't work if the glans is obscured, while the rest of the visible penis is identifiably human-like. Or if it's covered by foreskin or something.
The tag implication humanoid_penis -> glans (forum #375912) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.
watsit said:
This wouldn't work if the glans is obscured, while the rest of the visible penis is identifiably human-like. Or if it's covered by foreskin or something.
maybe "glans -> humanoid_penis" would be more relevant than "humanoid_penis -> glans"?
dimoretpinel said:
maybe "glans -> humanoid_penis" would be more relevant than "humanoid_penis -> glans"?
Non-humanoid penises can have glans too, like penis_tentacles.
dimoretpinel said:
maybe "glans -> humanoid_penis" would be more relevant than "humanoid_penis -> glans"?
While typically a humanoid trait, it can be possible to draw a glans on an animal penis.
Oh okay, thanks for the explanation!
