The bulk update request #9790 is active.

remove implication leaking_pussy (1563) -> pussy (899549)

Reason: Not sure why this was added without any discussion/BUR, but a pussy can be leaking without being directly visible.
post #4962838 post #4741342 post #4450762 post #1317348

EDIT: The bulk update request #9790 (forum #425524) has been approved by @slyroon.

IMO, the implication makes sense. If you know it's a leaking pussy, then obviously pussy should be included.

But a better question: If "tag what you see" applies, how do you know the pussy is what's leaking? You shouldn't tag "leaking pussy" unless the pussy is visible.

razethion said:
IMO, the implication makes sense. If you know it's a leaking pussy, then obviously pussy should be included.

But a better question: If "tag what you see" applies, how do you know the pussy is what's leaking? You shouldn't tag "leaking pussy" unless the pussy is visible.

to some extent "Tag What You See" can also mean "Tag What You Reasonably Know Is Happening, Even Though You Can't Actually See It", which is why we tag male_penetrating_female on stuff like post #5190119 even without seeing the penetration directly.

The bulk update request #9790 (forum #425524) has been approved by @slyroon.