The tag implication #38629 partially_retracted_foreskin -> uncut has been rejected.

Reason:

EDIT: The tag implication partially_retracted_foreskin -> uncut (forum #309585) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

EDIT: The tag implication partially_retracted_foreskin -> uncut (forum #309585) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

EDIT: The tag implication partially_retracted_foreskin -> uncut (forum #309585) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

All the other *_foreskin tags seem to imply foreskin rather than uncut. I imagine this was done for some sort of reason.

As a side note I'm honestly not really sure what the point of the uncut tag is that isn't already represented by the foreskin tag.

faucet said:
All the other *_foreskin tags seem to imply foreskin rather than uncut. I imagine this was done for some sort of reason.

As a side note I'm honestly not really sure what the point of the uncut tag is that isn't already represented by the foreskin tag.

There was a huge discussion about whether or not we should use uncut or foreskin as the tag, and eventually an admin decided to just unalias the latter from the former... we're still in a sort of limbo for which of the two tags to use, with good reasons on both ends of the argument, so foreskin just kinda exists as a tag until the argument (eventually) reaches a conclusion. It hasn't resurfaced for a while, though, and implications have been made since for reasons I don't know.

The tag implication partially_retracted_foreskin -> uncut (forum #309585) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The tag implication partially_retracted_foreskin -> uncut (forum #309585) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The tag implication partially_retracted_foreskin -> uncut (forum #309585) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.