The bulk update request #8370 has been rejected.

create implication bitchsuit (1096) -> frogtied (3338)
create implication bitchsuit (1096) -> frogtied_arms (87)

Reason: Being bitchsuited involves getting both your arms and legs frogtied.

EDIT: The bulk update request #8370 (forum #407092) has been rejected by @Waydence.

Does this work in images like these, where the tying n't actually visible?
post #4617599
post #4609106
The latter especially looks like it might have portals or amputation involved.

regsmutt said:
Does this work in images like these, where the tying n't actually visible?
post #4617599
post #4609106
The latter especially looks like it might have portals or amputation involved.

These go against the current definition of bitchsuit ("a suit that binds the upper arms to the lower arms and upper legs to the lower legs").
But they do follow the spirit of bitchsuit, as "suits that make you walk on knees and elbows".
Would it make more sense to change the definition?

The bulk update request #8370 (forum #407092) has been rejected by @Waydence.