The tag implication #63805 licking_blood -> blood_on_tongue is pending approval.

Reason: Right?

The bulk update request #8477 is pending approval.

remove implication licking_blood (156) -> blood (47773)
create implication licking_cum (1929) -> cum_on_tongue (17539)
remove implication licking_cum (1929) -> cum (695506)
create implication licking_cum (1929) -> licking (145850)
create implication licking_blood (156) -> licking (145850)

Reason: Removing the other implication + adding cum + adding licking implication

romanicyte2 said:
Reason: Right?

Could it ever be shown in a way that blood is not present on the tongue?
post #2893035

thegreatwolfgang said:
Could it ever be shown in a way that blood is not present on the tongue?
post #2893035

Not fully sure that this and other similar posts would fall under licking_blood

snpthecat said:
Not fully sure that this and other similar posts would fall under licking_blood

I do believe there can be cases where one is licking a fluid, but it is not visually apparent.
For example, tongue out and touching a fluid-coated hand but the actual licking/contact point is obscured.

post #615100

thegreatwolfgang said:
Could it ever be shown in a way that blood is not present on the tongue?
post #2893035

Seems possible. I couldn't find any examples on quick glance, but I could imagine there being some posts where there's not enough of the tongue visible (due to angle or blocked view) to tag it as *_on_tongue, while still counting as licking_*.