Implicating penis_tentacles → penis
Link to implication

Reason:

This seems like a bad alias.
Penis shaped tentacles aren't penises.

Halite said:
This seems like a bad alias.
Penis shaped tentacles aren't penises.

Interesting, I had always thought of them as either the penises of a monster or as a sort of penis creature themselves.

parasprite said:
Interesting, I had always thought of them as either the penises of a monster or as a sort of penis creature themselves.

Well, there's definitely art of the latter (that is, autonomous penis creatures) and I can't argue with tagging those penis_tentacles penis.
Not sure about the former though -- I would expect them to be tagged penis_tentacles sex_organ, sex_organ is woefully generic but I don't think we have any better term.

Disembodied penii are counted as characters (and imply male), while tentacles aren't counted. So to keep it consistent, we probably shouldn't consider those to be actual genitals.

Genjar said:
Disembodied penii are counted as characters (and imply male), while tentacles aren't counted. So to keep it consistent, we probably shouldn't consider those to be actual genitals.

A slight side-question, but I had changed post #253458 from questionable -> explicit because it was my understanding that all sex organs = explicit. Is this true for cases like this?

parasprite said:
Is this true for cases like this?

I'd say explicit. If it looks that much like a disembodied penis, I think it should be tagged as one. I wouldn't tag the one on upper right as a tentacle at all.

Anyway, I've been saying that we might need to rethink the whole "tentacles never count as characters" policy, though I didn't want to bring that up here -- because it'd be quite a lengthy debate.

In a nutshell: disembodied_penis is by default a male character, so if we consider disembodied penis_tentacles to be actual penises, then it's inconsistent to not count those as characters.

Implication denied for the moment as it doesn't seem to work very well with how we handle tentacles. I think this implication should be brought up again if/when we change how tentacles are treated (as a character).

Implication penis_tentacles -> tentacles was never done, so I've went ahead and approved that.

If you think about it, tentacles are (usually) reproductive organs of tentacle monsters. So wouldn't it be logical that they would sort of count as tentacle's penii? Maybe not tentacles, since we can't discern if they're penises or just arms of tentacle monster but, It would be pretty logical to say penis_tentacles are penises of tentacle monsters.

And I made a thread for you!
https://e621.net/forum/show/157216