Implicating ball_fondling → balls
Link to implication

Reason:

You need some balls if you're going to go ball fondling

I dunno, I can concieve of an image where you are clearly fondling vis a vis a hand below the dick in a fondling arrangement, but where the hand is blocking the view of said balls due to size and/or angle of the view.

Halite said:
I dunno, I can concieve of an image where you are clearly fondling vis a vis a hand below the dick in a fondling arrangement, but where the hand is blocking the view of said balls due to size and/or angle of the view.

By that logic, then it wouldn't be ball fondling either, it's in the name itself, it needs balls seen/tagged in the pic for the action to be tagged too.

Butterscotch said:
By that logic, then it wouldn't be ball fondling either, it's in the name itself, it needs balls seen/tagged in the pic for the action to be tagged too.

Not so. If we can see a penis, then having balls is automatically assumed as default, regardless of whether they are visible or not. If we see a hand fondling where the balls were, and there's no vagina being fingered (for a herm), it can be thus assumed that the balls are being fondled even though they are not directly visible in the image.

Similarly we can have an image with two people, one male/herm the other female/herm, the latter bent over and the former pressed up from behind, so the penis is not visible, yet positioned low enough so it's obviously not anal, no penis visible, yet it's obviously vaginal penetration and is tagged as such, because the standard male body is assumed to have certain parts, same for the standard female body.

Do we tag ball_fondling if they're being fondled through underwear? It would be obvious that they're balls, but to my knowledge they're only tagged as bulge.

Seven_Twenty said:
Do we tag ball_fondling if they're being fondled through underwear? It would be obvious that they're balls, but to my knowledge they're only tagged as bulge.

I don't think so. Imo the tag only applies to directly touching the balls

post #385345 and post #34652 seem to indicate otherwise. Those very definitely are balls being fondled in the first case, and the second, if the image were cropped to just the fox and the cat's arm, would be an image of ball fondling without balls visible, as only the cat's balls are visible through the underwear.

Considering that we tag breasts even if clothed, I don't see a reason not to tag obvious balls if they're visible.

123easy said:
Considering that we tag breasts even if clothed, I don't see a reason not to tag obvious balls if they're visible.

I agree with this.

123easy said:
Considering that we tag breasts even if clothed, I don't see a reason not to tag obvious balls if they're visible.

As far as I know, breasts are only tagged if there's at least some cleavage is actually showing and not just if you can see some lumps in the clothing around the chest area. In the images you posted, there's only the shape of them and they're not actually showing. I don't really care either way, just putting a little input in.