The tag implication #52991 no_condom -> bareback has been rejected.

Reason: Bareback is the more popular tag.

EDIT: The tag implication no_condom -> bareback (forum #382581) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Vaginal sex from the front with no condom isn't bareback. I'm not sure why the wiki says bareback can apply to any non-condom sex, including oral or vaginal, since "The topic primarily concerns anal sex between men without the use of a condom, and may be distinguished from unprotected sex because bareback sex denotes the deliberate act of forgoing condom use ", and I can't say I've heard the term used outside of reference to gay anal sex. Though even if it does, that would make the two tags the same, where an alias would be more appropriate than an implication.

I also don't think tagging the absence of a condom is useful. Generally we avoid having no_ versions of tags, though there are exceptions. Especially since a major principle of tagging is don't tag the defaults, and condoms are rather rare in art. That would apply to bareback too.

scth said:
I also don't think tagging the absence of a condom is useful. Generally we avoid having no_ versions of tags, though there are exceptions. Especially since a major principle of tagging is don't tag the defaults, and condoms are rather rare in art. That would apply to bareback too.

I was thinking of dialogue implying the use of a condom where this is not the case.

watsit said:
Vaginal sex from the front with no condom isn't bareback. I'm not sure why the wiki says bareback can apply to any non-condom sex, including oral or vaginal, since "The topic primarily concerns anal sex between men without the use of a condom, and may be distinguished from unprotected sex because bareback sex denotes the deliberate act of forgoing condom use ", and I can't say I've heard the term used outside of reference to gay anal sex. Though even if it does, that would make the two tags the same, where an alias would be more appropriate than an implication.

Ah fair, guess the wiki needs some editing then.

watsit said:
Vaginal sex from the front with no condom isn't bareback. I'm not sure why the wiki says bareback can apply to any non-condom sex, including oral or vaginal, since "The topic primarily concerns anal sex between men without the use of a condom, and may be distinguished from unprotected sex because bareback sex denotes the deliberate act of forgoing condom use ", and I can't say I've heard the term used outside of reference to gay anal sex. Though even if it does, that would make the two tags the same, where an alias would be more appropriate than an implication.

"Primarily used" isn't the same as "exclusively used", just because it is mostly used to describe gay anal sex nowadays, doesn't mean it can't be used in other situations anymore.
The bigger issue is that the wiki states it can be used in any case of penetration where a condom is not present, which just makes it equivalent to -condom.
I think the only valid way to have bareback as a tag is if it is only applied to situations where it is somehow shown that there was a deliberate decision made to not use a condom, with no limitations on the type of penetration.

themasterpotato said:
The bigger issue is that the wiki states it can be used in any case of penetration where a condom is not present, which just makes it equivalent to -condom.

To be fair, I could certainly see that art made to cater for this kind of fetish might be quite likely to feature condoms elsewhere in the image - previously used, discarded, being pulled off, or simply ignored.

Probably we would have to limit it to cases along the same lines as explicitly_stated_nonconsent to make it usable as a tag.

The tag implication no_condom -> bareback (forum #382581) has been rejected by @slyroon.