The tag implication #42699 penile -> penis has been rejected.

Reason: I noticed that the tags describing acts involving genitals are not related to the actual genital tags. penile_stimulation, etc, might also make sense to have this in place. you can't have "penile*" anything without first having a penis, I figure.

also this will help with blacklisting. I can search "-penis" and still get a ton of images that include a penis. having this implication should resolve that I think.

EDIT: The tag implication penile -> penis (forum #322232) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

This implication has been rejected before. topic #28268

Per previous topics it's possible to have penile and its subtags without actually showing a penis.

post #3002459

Shows no penis, yet is clearly penile penetration.

faucet said:
Per previous topics it's possible to have penile and its subtags without actually showing a penis.

post #3002459

Shows no penis, yet is clearly penile penetration.

the fact I had to scroll past so many posts that should've been tagged with penis to find this example makes me really wish this alias could be a thing...

lol

gattonero2001 said:
This implication has been rejected before. topic #28268

ah, I am just not great at forums quite yet. Thank you for the link, will give it a read!

The tag implication penile -> penis (forum #322232) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.