Implicating doggy_position -> all_fours.

Reason: yeah

I've had this on my to-do list.

ippiki_ookami said:
I've had this on my to-do list.

:D

What about if they're not exactly on all fours, like they're holding onto something like post #198851? Also, do we have a tag for an image that is being viewed from behind the characters? Because apparently, view from behind is aliased to from behind, which is only for sex. I don't know if i'm being picky or not, but i'm protective of my doggystyle.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
Because apparently, view from behind is aliased to from behind, which is only for sex.

I've always wondered about that; from behind used to show penetration direction instead of viewing direction.

Do we have a tag for viewing direction?

Raiden_Gekkou said:
What about if they're not exactly on all fours, like they're holding onto something like post #198851? Also, do we have a tag for an image that is being viewed from behind the characters? Because apparently, view from behind is aliased to from behind, which is only for sex. I don't know if i'm being picky or not, but i'm protective of my doggystyle.

Not really doggystyle if you ask me...

I also have no idea why view_from_behind is aliased to from_behind as that is sort of silly.

Yeah there's a few situations in which doggy position doesn't necessarily involve being on all fours, so I'm against the implication.

tony311 said:
Yeah there's a few situations in which doggy position doesn't necessarily involve being on all fours

like

KiwiPotato said:
like

The aforementioned situation wherein the receiving partner is leaning on or against something?

Test-Subject_217601 said:
The aforementioned situation wherein the receiving partner is leaning on or against something?

that isnt doggystyle then

Test-Subject_217601 said:
The aforementioned situation wherein the receiving partner is leaning on or against something?

which is technicaly not doggy depending on the pic

ippiki_ookami said:
that isnt doggystyle then

Doggy style
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...Furniture support
For support, the receiving partner can hold onto or lay across some furniture, such as the side of a bed, couch, chair or stool. Furniture can also be used in bondage play.
ehhh

Also damn looking at all those pictures makes me wish I wasn't socially/emotionally stunted.

If I wasn't clear in my first post, I'm against the impication as well.

Would the reciever having his/her head and chest on the floor with butt up while mounted be a form of doggy style without being on all fours? Ive done this myself and considered it as me being done doggy style...

It's called frog style apparently and yes it's a subset of doggy according to Wikipedia. Also, lucky bastard.

Furmillionaire said:
It's called frog style apparently and yes it's a subset of doggy according to Wikipedia. Also, lucky bastard.

Whom are you referring to as the bastard? No boy parts here

I'd say no to this implication.

side note: view_from_behind and from_behind ought to be clarified and or separated into a tag for viewpoint and a tag for location of the penetrating partner.

Ivory_Wolf said:
Would the reciever having his/her head and chest on the floor with butt up while mounted be a form of doggy style without being on all fours? Ive done this myself and considered it as me being done doggy style...

How do you do that without being on all fours

KiwiPotato said:
How do you do that without being on all fours

By not being on my hands and knees, just being on my knees and letting my head and chest rest on the bed. Its convenient for self pleasuring while mounted thanks to my hands being free to reach back there. Still seems like doggy style to me without being on all fours. ^_^

Ivory_Wolf said:

By not being on my hands and knees, just being on my knees and letting my head and chest rest on the bed. Its convenient for self pleasuring while mounted thanks to my hands being free to reach back there. Still seems like doggy style to me without being on all fours. ^_^

so you mean he was holding your arms back?

KiwiPotato said:
so you mean he was holding your arms back?

sometimes yes but others I have my hands free and reaching between my legs to add stimulation to me and him. Kinda feel like this is getting oddly personal for a public chat, perhaps private messaging would be better for this kind of chat, id gladly answer more there ^_^

Oh no, by all means keep going...

Ivory_Wolf said:
sometimes yes but others I have my hands free and reaching between my legs to add stimulation to me and him. Kinda feel like this is getting oddly personal for a public chat, perhaps private messaging would be better for this kind of chat, id gladly answer more there ^_^

What the shit

Furmillionaire said:
Oh no, by all means keep going...

Lol! Not here... >_>

Well this thread took a sharp turn into Awkwardsville.

ippiki_ookami said:
Well this thread took a sharp turn into Awkwardsville.

My apologies, really was not my intention.

ippiki_ookami said:
Well this thread took a sharp turn into Awkwardsville.

Indeed.
All in favor of locking it and never speaking of this again?

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Indeed.
All in favor of locking it and never speaking of this again?

Again, my sincerest apologies... But the fate of said thread is now in moderator hands

It's definitely getting hot in here!

On a side note (which may keep this thread alive), it is always nice to have female interaction on the site as it contradicts the misconception of a male-dominated community. Female viewpoints are always appreciated by me!

Furry_Fanatic said:
It's definitely getting hot in here!

On a side note (which may keep this thread alive), it is always nice to have female interaction on the site as it contradicts the misconception of a male-dominated community. Female viewpoints are always appreciated by me!

Glad to assist and thank you kind sir for the appreciation!

is gettin hot in here

anyway...

Furry_Fanatic said:
It's definitely getting hot in here!

On a side note (which may keep this thread alive), it is always nice to have female interaction on the site as it contradicts the misconception of a male-dominated community. Female viewpoints are always appreciated by me!

I'm fairly certain we have at least five female staff members here.

null0010 said:
I'm fairly certain we have at least five female staff members here.

3

ippiki_ookami said:
3

900000

null0010 said:
I'm fairly certain we have at least five female staff members here.

Compared to how many males?

Furry_Fanatic said:
Compared to how many males?

4 female mods to 10 male ones.

Of course, I assumed any mod whose gender I wasn't sure of was male so those numbers might be a bit off.

Can someone tell me what the question is, what does "implicated" mean, replace the first tag with the second, merge both tags together, what exactly is he asking, I need to learn these terms.

An implication is when one tag necessitates a second tag, but the second tag does not necessitate the first.

blue_eyes -> eyes is an implication.

Let's say I'm uploading this image (I wouldn't actually upload that image, it's just an example,) and all I put in the tag list is blue_eyes, when I hit the "Upload" button, the site will automatically add the eyes tag. So the tag list will read:

blue_eyes
eyes

However, if I had only entered eyes instead of blue_eyes while entering the post, when I hit save the site would not add anything, so the tag list would simply say

eyes

This is because a blue eye must be an eye, but an eye is not necessarily blue.

KloH0und said:
An implication is when one tag necessitates a second tag, but the second tag does not necessitate the first.

blue_eyes -> eyes is an implication.

Let's say I'm uploading this image (I wouldn't actually upload that image,) and all I put in the tag list is blue_eyes, when I hit the "Upload" button, the site will automatically add the eyes tag. So the tag list will read:

blue_eyes
eyes

However, if I had only entered eyes instead of blue_eyes while entering the post, when I hit save the site would not add anything, so the tag list would simply say

eyes

This is because a blue eye must be an eye, but an eye is not necessarily blue.

Cool, there are lots of things that could be implicated if that's the case lol. I just click all the tags they suggest anyways lol

Yes, there are many possible implications and many extant ones.

Implications and aliases are proposed on the forums and discussed before being put into effect.

xxxFurryFanxxx said:
Cool, there are lots of things that could be implicated if that's the case lol. I just click all the tags they suggest anyways lol

Well yes but of ALL the possibilities, 90% of them are nonsensical.
Could you imagine of horse implicated brown because horses are brown sometimes? It'd just be silly!

penis - > male seems like a sensible tag, as well.

Then you remember hermaphrodites.

KloH0und said:
penis - > male seems like a sensible tag, as well.

Then you remember hermaphrodites.

KloH0und said:
penis - > male seems like a sensible tag, as well.

Then you remember hermaphrodites.

Well you could actually say that balls, big_balls, large_balls, hyper_balls and small_balls are all implicated to penis but you know, people aren't that lazy lol

xxxFurryFanxxx said:
Well you could actually say that balls, big_balls, large_balls, hyper_balls and small_balls are all implicated to penis but you know, people aren't that lazy lol

Not necessarily. There's pictures like post #200522, where you can see balls but not a penis.

Test-Subject_217601 said:
Not necessarily. There's pictures like post #200522, where you can see balls but not a penis.

How did you even find that picture?

WOW! You actually typed in balls -penis u_u? But you're still right!