The tag implication #41123 standing_doggystyle -> standing_sex has been rejected.

Reason: standing doggy requires standing during sex

EDIT: The tag implication standing_doggystyle -> standing_sex (forum #315383) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Going back to my concerns raised on topic #30208, being in that position does not necessarily mean that sex is involved, such as the case with imminent_sex and after_sex posts.

The name of this tag seems rather odd. It doesn't have much to do with actual doggystyle (it's just standing_sex + from_behind), which runs the risk of posts getting mistagged as doggystyle. The exclusion of prison_guard_position is also odd, since that position is close to what I'd call 'standing doggystyle'. This needs rethinking/clarification. And someone could probably come up with a better name for this tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Going back to my concerns raised on topic #30208, being in that position does not necessarily mean that sex is involved, such as the case with imminent_sex and after_sex posts.

Sex position tags are strictly for sex, hence the implications to sex. Use various other tags for posts that don't contain sex, such as grabbing_from_behind, on_top, etc.

genjar said:
Sex position tags are strictly for sex, hence the implications to sex. Use various other tags for posts that don't contain sex, such as grabbing_from_behind, on_top, etc.

That is clearly not the case based on the various examples presented in the thread mentioned earlier (topic #30208).
There are many posts that show characters is said position without the presence of sex. Is this a case of mass mistags?

I would say that this would need to be addressed first (i.e., Do all sexual position tags require sex to be actively in progress?), have the wiki rewritten to mention it's only used in cases of sex, and then requesting a BUR for most (if not all) sex positions to be implied to sex.

thegreatwolfgang said:
That is clearly not the case based on the various examples presented in the thread mentioned earlier (topic #30208).
There are many posts that show characters is said position without the presence of sex. Is this a case of mass mistags?

Personally, honestly, yeah.

thegreatwolfgang said:
There are many posts that show characters is said position without the presence of sex. Is this a case of mass mistags?

Yep, mistags. The sex implications are there for a reason (see the main position tags such as missionary_position). If it's not taggable as sex, it's not taggable with a sex position either.
There's just been tons of position tags added recently (some of them of questionable validity) that the implications haven't caught up yet.

There should be zero hits under *_position -rating:e. There's a tagging project for someone. (Don't forget to untag sex too if the position needs removal.)

Bringing up a point from the other thread:

Should romantic posts be considered for the *_position tags (particularly when they are still clothed)?

Yes, if it's taggable as sex. Penetration is not required (f/f being most common example of that). And sex can be one-sided, with just one character getting off on it. Someone humping a clothed character is still 'sex'.

strikerman said:
Personally, honestly, yeah.

genjar said:
Yep, mistags. The sex implications are there for a reason (see the main position tags such as missionary_position). If it's not taggable as sex, it's not taggable with a sex position either.
There's just been tons of position tags added recently (some of them of questionable validity) that the implications haven't caught up yet.

If that is the case, all *_position wikis should mention this is an Explicit tag. Only to be used in conjunction to sex.

There should be zero hits under *_position -rating:e. There's a tagging project for someone. (Don't forget to untag sex too if the position needs removal.)

You might want to check under imminent_sex and after_sex as well.

As well as consider characters interacting with inanimate objects, since masturbation is not considered sex (e.g., a character fucking a life-size doll/replica of someone is considered masturbation and should not be tagged with *_position since it's technically not sex.)

genjar said:
Bringing up a point from the other thread:
Yes, if it's taggable as sex. Penetration is not required (f/f being most common example of that). And sex can be one-sided, with just one character getting off on it. Someone humping a clothed character is still 'sex'.

Not when it tagged with imminent_sex or after_sex.

A perfect example of the inherent problem that I am trying to raise with the *_position -> sex implications:

post #2846783 - Technically cowgirl_position, but it cannot be tagged as such because it is imminent_sex.
post #2890457 - Can be tagged with cowgirl_position and sex.
post #2890455 - Technically cowgirl_position, but it cannot be tagged as such because it is after_sex.

The characters never changed their positions in these three posts, and we are to assume that for the sake of tradition, all *_position tags inherently needs to involve sex.

Note: Another problem I just realised is that imminent_penetration is aliased with imminent_sex, but penetration is kept separate from sex.

thegreatwolfgang said:
post #2846783 - Technically cowgirl_position, but it cannot be tagged as such because it is imminent_sex.
post #2890455 - Technically cowgirl_position, but it cannot be tagged as such because it is after_sex.

frottage is sex, no 'imminent' or 'after' about either of those. If the characters are still having sex, it's not after sex. And imminent sex doesn't apply if they're already doing it.

I could maybe see tagging the last one as after sex, in addition to sex. But it could just as well be round two, since there's to indicator that they've stopped.

genjar said:
frottage is sex, no 'imminent' or 'after' about either of those. If the characters are still having sex, so it's not after sex. And imminent sex doesn't apply if they're already doing it.

I could maybe see tagging the last one as after sex, in addition to sex. But it could just as well be round two, since there's to indicator that they've stopped.

That's far from the actual point. If I set the characters further apart a bit to not let their genitals touch, it would still be imminent_sex or after_sex.

This is another (more proper) example, tagged with from_front_position and subsequent imminent_sex, sex, & after_sex variations.
post #2856912 post #2856913 post #2856920

The tag implication standing_doggystyle -> standing_sex (forum #315383) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.