The tag implication #41118 human_penetrating_human -> intraspecies has been rejected.

Reason: Two humans having sex cannot be different species.

EDIT: The tag implication human_penetrating_human -> intraspecies (forum #315210) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

post #2884492

For duo images, I'd be inclined to agree, but is somebody who's searching for intraspecies looking for something like this? Should a group image be able to count as both interspecies and intraspecies, if it's something like a human-human-feline-feline group who are all directly interacting with one another?

lafcadio said:
For duo images, I'd be inclined to agree, but is somebody who's searching for intraspecies looking for something like this? Should a group image be able to count as both interspecies and intraspecies, if it's something like a human-human-feline-feline group who are all directly interacting with one another?

I would say yes, intraspecies would apply. If someone doesn't want that, they could also exclude the interspecies tag.

intraspecies -interspecies

lafcadio said:
post #2884492

For duo images, I'd be inclined to agree, but is somebody who's searching for intraspecies looking for something like this? Should a group image be able to count as both interspecies and intraspecies, if it's something like a human-human-feline-feline group who are all directly interacting with one another?

We probably won’t have any new duo human on human images on this site due to site rules against human-only content, so I would presume all uses of the tag have other species involved. Intraspecies and interspecies don’t seem to be mutually exclusive, however.

scaliespe said:
We probably won’t have any new duo human on human images on this site due to site rules against human-only content, so I would presume all uses of the tag have other species involved. Intraspecies and interspecies don’t seem to be mutually exclusive, however.

It could happen in the middle of a comic that otherwise features furries, but I do otherwise agree that there's no reason to consider them exclusive.

Shouldn't the implication be from human_on_human instead? I know the wiki says "sex", but the interspecies tag is implied from human_on_anthro, human_on_feral etc, making it apply to any romantic or sexual interaction.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Shouldn't the implication be from human_on_human instead? I know the wiki says "sex", but the interspecies tag is implied from human_on_anthro, human_on_feral etc, making it apply to any romantic or sexual interaction.

+1. Sexual interaction can occur from activities other than penetration, e.g. handjobs, frottage.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Shouldn't the implication be from human_on_human instead? I know the wiki says "sex", but the interspecies tag is implied from human_on_anthro, human_on_feral etc, making it apply to any romantic or sexual interaction.

Good point. human_penetrating_human already implies human_on_human so the tag would end up in place through that.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Shouldn't the implication be from human_on_human instead? I know the wiki says "sex", but the interspecies tag is implied from human_on_anthro, human_on_feral etc, making it apply to any romantic or sexual interaction.

In that case the wiki pages for interspecies and intraspecies should probably be updated as well.

The tag implication human_penetrating_human -> intraspecies (forum #315210) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.