Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag implication #46612 penis_in_ass -> penis has been rejected.
Reason: for there to be a penis inside someone, there needs to be a penis
EDIT: The tag implication penis_in_ass -> penis (forum #342618) has been rejected by @SnowWolf.
Updated by auto moderator
The penis can be obscured:
post #3516822
insanitycupcakes said:
Reason: for there to be a penis inside someone, there needs to be a penis
But would you see the penis though?
watsit said:
The penis can be obscured:
post #3516822
Should it really be tagged penis_in_ass if you can't see the penis in the ass?
strikerman said:
Should it really be tagged penis_in_ass if you can't see the penis in the ass?
It can be tagged anal_penetration, implying there's a penis_in_ass since it's unlikely to be anything else.
I don't see a penis in that, and there's no way that that's not anal/not a dick in that ass.
watsit said:
The penis can be obscured:
post #3516822
wouldn't tagging it with penis_in_ass then violate twys if it's not visible?
Huh, when did penis_in_ass become a tag? Well, it does seem more convenient than penile_penetration + anal, so I won't complain.
insanitycupcakes said:
wouldn't tagging it with penis_in_ass then violate twys if it's not visible?
I think it's fine to tag sex acts if they're implied. I mean, if we didn't tag implied sex acts like anal or penetration to posts like post #3516822, users would have a harder time finding the things they're looking for. If the user wants to only see pictures with a visible penis, they can add penis to their search.
insanitycupcakes said:
wouldn't tagging it with penis_in_ass then violate twys if it's not visible?
no. twys also sometimes extends to "tag what you could reasonably assume is happening in an image based on basic knowledge of anatomy". if there's obviously penetration going on and the pelvis is contacting/near another character's orifice and there's no indication that the penetrating character's wearing a strapon it's penile_penetration. otherwise the tags would be significantly less useful.
insanitycupcakes said:
wouldn't tagging it with penis_in_ass then violate twys if it's not visible?
Penis_in_ass is meant to be a quick way of saying penile_penetration + anal_penetration, in contrast to dildo_in_ass. It does not mean that a penis needs to be visually present in the scene, just implied.
strikerman said:
Should it really be tagged penis_in_ass if you can't see the penis in the ass?
Penile_penetration is still tagged even when you don't see the penis.
And for those who don't know yet, please tag obscured_sex or obscured_penetration if you can't visually see the sex/penetration but know it is in fact happening.
thegreatwolfgang said:
Penis_in_ass is meant to be a quick way of saying penile_penetration + anal_penetration, in contrast to dildo_in_ass. It does not mean that a penis needs to be visually present in the scene, just implied.
So why not just tag penile penetration and anal penetration? Personally, if I'm searching for anal, I want to see the anal
strikerman said:
So why not just tag penile penetration and anal penetration? Personally, if I'm searching for anal, I want to see the anal
Because 1 tag is always faster to type than 2. Also, technically you are seeing the anal action, just not the anus.
If obscured_penetration is used more often, you could exclude that in your search results.
The tag implication penis_in_ass -> penis (forum #342618) has been rejected by @SnowWolf.
