I have created a tag called 'Micro Sexual Abuse', it's when macros use little people for sex toys.

If you search micro_sexual_abuse there are only about 12 pictures with the tag, but there used to be at least a whole page with the tag.

Why are people removing my tag even in pictures where it clearly fits?

It appears to mostly be one person... http://e621.net/post_tag_history?user_id=32122 ... why don't you give him a PM and ask politely?

maybe there's a better way the tag could be phrased?

I also saw a masturbation_with_people and living_sex_toy...

There's only really a need for one tag of this purpose... let's pick one, or a similar tag--and get them consolidated and make a wikipage for it.

I'd say maybe try to avoid "sexual_abuse"? in some cases, it might be more of a willing thing...

also, I see micro_insertion

micro_insertion would be a subset of micro_on_macro. In fact, might I suggest that as the tag, since it's direct and to the point, without any issues of willing or not?

micro_on_macro actually sounds really good! :)

My idea for micro_sexual_abuse is that it is treated similar to child sexual abuse, even if it may be willing children are consider too immature to make proper decisions for themselves and too fragile, just replace child with micro.

Micro on macro makes a lot of sense especially because a lot of times they are literally hanging onto the macro trying not to fall. :P

And there's also plenty of willing micros playing with macros as well, so it'd consolidate all micro/macro pairings, willing or otherwise.

awesome!

any other macro/micro lovers out there want to weigh in?

So... her'es what I've got out of the conversation:

micro_sexual_abuse is retagged to micro_on_macro
masturbation_with_people is retagged to micro_on_macro
living_sex_toy is retagged to micro_on_macro

micro_insertion implies micro_on_macro

macro_insertion implies macro
micro_on_macro implies micro
micro_on_macro implies macro

Did I miss anything?

That looks right, though i'd add that micro also implies micro_on_macro, since for it to be considered micro, it'd need something macro to it's scale in comparison. i'd also imply them all to size_difference if they aren't already.

ooh. good catch with size difference... :) though, hmm..

though.. micro does not ALWAYS involve micro_on_macro: post #140331 post #120101 for example.
and size_difference applies more to characters involved in sex.. so, micro on macro will definently imply that.

okay. I'm not approving them yet, but I have retagged all those things.. and...

Implications:

micro_insertion -> macro
micro_insertion -> micro
micro_insertion -> micro_on_macro
micro_on_macro -> micro
micro_on_macro -> macro
macro_insertion -> macro
micro_on_macro -> size_difference
micro_insertion -> size_difference

sound good? Any others? any objections?

alright, I'm approving these, then. :D