Implicating toying_self → sex_toy
Link to implication

Reason:

Is it possible to be toying one self without sex toy being visible?

EDIT: The tag implication toying_self -> sex_toy (forum #209627) has been approved by @furrypickle.

consider improvised_sex_toys, which aren't technically sex toys

consider toying_partner, which already implies sex_toy

toying_partner already got this implication over here, but there wasn't any discussion over it. I think the birb brings up a good point

Whatever gets decided, both toying_partner and toying_self should share the same implication or deimplication

Yeah, improvised toys weren't supposed to get the sex_toy tag.
Hadn't even noticed that toying_partner got implicated, but it's kind of late to do anything about it now. It's been implicated for months. :/

Personally, I would consider improvised_sex_toy still a sex_toy. I don't see any problems adding an implication there as well, whether it be searchability or filtering.

Food, icicles, stalagmites, etc. Those are not sex toys, and shouldn't really be tagged as such. Even if used as a improvised dildo.

I'm with Genjar and Knotty here.

Think about what is it that people want to find, when they search for a "sex toy".

In my opinion, it would be..
an object that's being used for amusement (toy), in a sexual way (sex).

Just because an object has a specific shape, it doesn't mean one cannot use it for sexual amusement.

So logically, any object can be a sex toy. It simply depends on how it's used at the moment it's portrated. This is in accordance to TWYS.

For example, a predator is swallowing a prey. In that exact moment, the prey is food for the predator. Even tho the prey isn't defined as food by default. You're tagging all those vegetables as food but, what is "food"?

One can differentiate objects based on their "default" usage. But default usage isn't always what's portrayed on images. And yes, I'm aware that the current definition of sex_toy tag is such that it only applies to devices with default usage of being sex toys. I'm disputing this definition.

Just throwing my two cents here, when I search for sex_toy, I'm fine with seeing things that aren't actually sex toys but are being used as such, and it's actually somewhat annoying to need to specify the inclusion of improvised sex toys as well.

It's pretty easy to search for specific sex toys. We've got names for them. So I feel like if someone's searching for sex toy in general, they're probably trying for a catch-all sort of thing.

Delian said:
consider toying_partner, which already implies sex_toy

Precedents aren't always correct, and we've reversed decisions in the past. The toying_partner implication was approved without discussing the possibility of improvised sex toys.

Genjar said:
Yeah, improvised toys weren't supposed to get the sex_toy tag.
Hadn't even noticed that toying_partner got implicated, but it's kind of late to do anything about it now. It's been implicated for months. :/

1680 posts so far. Not the smallest of cleanups, but still doable.

Delian said:
Personally, I would consider improvised_sex_toy still a sex_toy. I don't see any problems adding an implication there as well, whether it be searchability or filtering.

Tags (when added correctly) are for narrowing searches. If sex_toy and improvised_sex_toy are lumped together, then why have both at all? May as well alias them to sex_object. If I want to see things unintended for sexual use being shoved in various holes, then I will search using "improvised" tags, not sex_toy.

If you want to find both: sex_toy
If you want to find only improvised: improvised_sex_toy
If you want to find only non-improvised: sex_toy -improvised_sex_toy

So, not much would change. Except that now we would have an umbrella tag, rather than having two mutually exclusive tags. And, of course, no cleanup would be required.

Delian said:
If you want to find both: sex_toy
If you want to find only improvised: improvised_sex_toy
If you want to find only non-improvised: sex_toy -improvised_sex_toy

So, not much would change. Except that now we would have an umbrella tag, rather than having two mutually exclusive tags. And, of course, no cleanup would be required.

Aliases and implications need to be airtight.

So, going off the last example there:

"If you want to find only non-improvised: sex_toy -improvised_sex_toy"

If we want to only search for sex toys yet need to manually exclude a modifier tag (in this case, improvised_sex_toy), which is not guaranteed to be tagged on every applicable post because it needs to also be ADDED manually, then the implication has failed. It has created far too many opportunities for error.

A lot of cleanup is a bad excuse for not fixing something, especially when you consider that by not properly de-coupling these terms you're just meaning that there's more clean up to do in the future. Even if you don't clean anything now it's best to not continue to make more work, as you're just offloading it onto yourself or future admins/users later.

gonna reply to myself because I didn't see my mistake until after I got home from work -

I meant to quote "If you want to find only improvised: improvised_sex_toy" then I got lost from there.

my main point is improvised_sex_toy and sex_toy both need to be added manually. We can't have toying_self or toying_partner implying either.

The tag implication toying_self -> sex_toy (forum #209627) has been approved by @furrypickle.