Implicating hands-free → penis
Link to implication

Reason:

The wiki description of Hands-free states that this only applies when the recipient has an orgasm involving his/[intersex with male genitalia pronouns] penis.

EDIT: The tag implication hands-free -> penis (forum #250204) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

-1, you can orgasm without your penis being visible.

Also, commonly accepted intersex pronouns are hir and shi if they're feminine w/ male genitalia.

wait, why exactly it restricted to characters with penis? because it can as well happen with characters that have vagina

Well, to clarify, the wiki actually says "A character ejaculating without direct stimulation of the penis. This is usually done by direct stimulation of the prostate, and almost always involves some form of anal penetration."

So, as written, this does apply only to penis bearers.

While vagina-owners can experience anal orgasms as well... That's closer to the typical, at least in porn-land. the opposite--where there is some vaginal stimulation at the same time as there is anal penetration--is considerably more rare, I think.

i really think that posts like these
post #1184016 post #1032791
should still be tagged as hands-free and the wiki should be updated to something more like "orgasm without direct stimulation of genitals"

I totally see what you're saying Eggplant, and agree there should be a tag for that too! I'm just not sure it should be the SAME tag as the one for the penis-owners :)

Probably have them both imply a single thing too :)

SnowWolf said:
Well, to clarify, the wiki actually says "A character ejaculating without direct stimulation of the penis. This is usually done by direct stimulation of the prostate, and almost always involves some form of anal penetration."

So, as written, this does apply only to penis bearers.

While vagina-owners can experience anal orgasms as well... That's closer to the typical, at least in porn-land. the opposite--where there is some vaginal stimulation at the same time as there is anal penetration--is considerably more rare, I think.

but is the penis onscreen?

kamimatsu said:
but is the penis onscreen?

well, I was responding to Commander Eggplant, who was asking about why it only applies to people with penises.

For the other all implication, no -1. The penis doesn't need to be visible.

I'm guessing that it's mainly used for penis, because we go by visual information, meaning it's much easier to see male orgasm that it is female. Also I have only heard the term used with males. Altough I don't see it being impossible to apply to females as well, because of the cases where it is clearly visible.

Even if it were males alone, this can still be indicated by angle or framing where penis isn't even visible, so implication to penis is a no.

Mario69 said:
I'm guessing that it's mainly used for penis, because we go by visual information, meaning it's much easier to see male orgasm that it is female. Also I have only heard the term used with males. Altough I don't see it being impossible to apply to females as well, because of the cases where it is clearly visible.

Even if it were males alone, this can still be indicated by angle or framing where penis isn't even visible, so implication to penis is a no.

I've heard it used fairly frequently both ways. There are quite a few sex toys/devices/masturbation techniques that claim to be hands free.

If we allow feminine genitals to also get tagged hands-free, we have to take into account the larger amount of toys (particularly) or actions that can get a woman off. An egg vibrator hidden inside the uterus, for instance: should it count as hands-free? What about the tiny version taped to the clitoris? Etc. for the rest, while the penis can ejaculate due to similar toys there are less ways to stimulate it or areas that cause stimulation.

However, I am not voting against the including of feminine genitals counting towards hands-free, I am merely wondering what counts towards that if they are included.

The tag implication hands-free -> penis (forum #250204) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.