Implicating pegging → sex_toy
Link to implication

Reason:

You can't peg without a strapon

Sollux said:
Implicating pegging → sex_toy
Link to implication

Reason:

You can't peg without a strapon

Maybe sex_toy and strapon or something along those lines, since a strapon is its own tag?

DarkWolf6052 said:
Maybe sex_toy and strapon or something along those lines, since a strapon is its own tag?

Does feeldoe imply strapon, or is it just sex_toy? If it's the former, then that's fine. If the latter, it'd have to imply sex_toy only.

Here's the current implication chains:
feeldoe -> double_dildo -> dildo -> sex_toy.
...and strapon -> dildo -> sex_toy.

I agree that pegging should be implicated to something, but perhaps it should imply dildo instead?

I wouldn't call the feeldoe a strapon. Seems like having pegging imply just sex_toy is the right idea. Or maybe dildo, but not strapon.

Wyvrn said:
I wouldn't call the feeldoe a strapon. Seems like having pegging imply just sex_toy is the right idea. Or maybe dildo, but not strapon.

The feeldoe is explicitly called out as qualifying in the case of pegging for a female on a male even though it is not a strapon as it replicates the functionality minus, well, the straps, thus why I brought that up, by the by.

are we sure that the sex toy is visible 100% of the time pegging is depicted?

Relatively sure. I considered the possibility, but searching for 'pegging -dildo' doesn't find anything (not after I fixed a couple of mistagged images). And if there's no visible sex toy, then the image should likely be tagged as dickgirl_on_male instead of pegging.

ippiki_ookami said:
are we sure that the sex toy is visible 100% of the time pegging is depicted?

If there wasn't at least straps visible, we wouldn't tag pegging, since it could just as easily be a penis, or not even have real insertion.
This one seems good to me.