Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: ffm_threesome -> ffm

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Watsit

Privileged

The bulk update request #9675 is pending approval.

create alias mmf (1071) -> male/female (669783)
create alias ffm (2028) -> male/female (669783)
create alias mfm (1) -> male/female (669783)

Reason:

donovan_dmc said:
we don't do pairing tags beyond two (e.g. male/female)

These tags don't require sex, so aliasing to the respective *_threesome tag would cause mistags. Not all ffm tags have the two females interacting (e.g. post #5118903), and not all mmf tags have the two males interacting (e.g. post #4912381), so male/male, female/female, and bisexual won't always apply to the respective tags, but they should all have at least one male interacting with at least one female, leaving male/female or group as the only applicable tags, and the former seems more informative to me.

I'd really rather not be aliasing away tags that actually provide reliable search results that can't be obtained through any other combination of existing tags, at least while other things like topic #43865 and topic #43888 are still in limbo.

If we had #_gender tags or male_majority/female_majority I'd vote to send this tag to oblivion.

spe said:
This same scenario can be covered by searching threesome male/female female/female

While reasonably common, an FFM threesome does not require female/female interaction:

post #4902280 post #5041656 post #4788712 post #4692160

Updated

  • 1