Implicating dirty_talk -> dialogue.

Reason: Not sure if dirty_talk should even be a tag, but either way, you can't talk dirty without talking.

Peekaboo said:
There's quite a difference between two characters saying "Say my good man, would you like to join me for a cup of tea?" or instead saying "FUCK YEEEAAAAAAH MAN, LETS SHOVE THIS TWO FEET LONG HORSECOCK UP YOUR BUTTHOLE UNTIL IT LOOKS LIKE GODZILLA FUCKING A BLOW-UP DOLL!". The dirty_talk tag is needed, although I prefer to tag it with porn_dialogue instead.

uh... that last one should be explicit_dialogue or creepy_talk :/ nah, just kidding

This should be an alias. I see no use for "dirty_talk" being a tag. It's just dialogue

Implication? yes. Alias? No.

Dirty_talk is a distinct type of talking which is part fantasy, part suggestive, part euphemism. The purpose is to further arouse one or both parties (or the viewer watching it) with listed descriptions of sex, sexual themes, sexual fantasies, sexual intentions, etc. But beyond that, it is still a distinct type of dialog separate from things like: comic dialogue, or a rant about getting fired, or a character's soliloquy, or two characters gossiping about god knows what, or a little bit of flirtation, etc. Aliasing it into the pile would lose a distinction that some users may find helpful. Dirty_talk IS a major kink for some people. The only think dirty_talk has in common with dialog is that both feature spoken text on the image. I think an implication is appropriate but an alias is inappropriate.

Although I do think dirty_talk --> porn_dialogue could be aliased. They're not quite the same thing (porn_dialogue has more of a parody element to it). But from a practicality standpoint it would be really hard to keep them distinguished from each other (porn dialogue can be good dirty talk or bad dirty talk subjectively, but it's still just dirty talk that may or may not be able to push your buttons). Also, porn_dialogue is more consistent keyword wise with the dialog tag. Except of course for the damn spelling discrepancy between them.

sorry to necro this thread but I was thinking of submitting this implication for review myself and searched and found it had already been submitted a long time ago with no action taken. (dirty_talking does not yet imply dialogue.)

I agree with the reasoning in the OP -- you can't talk dirty without talking.

Bumping this thread due to the recent announcement.

This technically isn't a valid implication, but there is a corresponding one in this thread:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/20371