The tag implication #65589 penetrating_pumpkin -> pumpkin is pending approval.

Reason: Obvious implication that doesn't seem implemented yet.

The bulk update request #9636 is pending approval.

create implication penetrating_pumpkin (492) -> food_penetration (503)

Reason: Pumpkins imply food, and so this should be correct. Though there has been some thoughts about changing food's implications, since it also includes inedible/toxic things

I wonder if food_penetration (and by extension penetrating pumpkin) should include penetrating food with a sex toy. Its current implication to improvised sex toy already ruled that out but...

Edit: Changed vote, see rationale in the BUR below

penetrating_pumpkin is also used for jack-o'-lanterns, which don't imply pumpkin or food.

watsit said:
penetrating_pumpkin is also used for jack-o'-lanterns, which don't imply pumpkin or food.

The issues surrounding topic #42427's rejection don't seem to apply here. They talk about how jack-o'-lanterns could be made from a different object other than pumpkins. The other objection was the tag covers the more general jack-o'-lantern design.

If this is the main problem with the implication, I wonder if penetrating this jack-o'-lantern candy basket would count as penetrating pumpkin

The bulk update request #9637 is pending approval.

create implication penetrating_pumpkin (492) -> pumpkin_masturbation (624)
create implication pumpkin_masturbation (624) -> masturbation (167815)
create implication pumpkin_masturbation (624) -> improvised_sex_toy (8999)

Reason: Tossing some uncontroversial implications here.

If this BUR passes, pumpkin_masturbation (instead of penetrating pumpkin) should imply pumpkin instead. That's why I've changed my vote from up to down

(Also should we have a tag for when the pumpkin penetrates the character? Any suggestions for the name?) Ah, penetrated_by_pumpkin. Any objections to the name? Making a separate BUR below

The bulk update request #9639 is pending approval.

create implication penetrated_by_pumpkin (97) -> pumpkin_masturbation (624)

Reason: Any suggestions if you dislike the name?

And whether or not pumpkins (in this context) count as food, this can either imply food insertion or object insertion (or neither, since whether or not the latter tag should exist and how it should be used is in a grey area right now)

The bulk update request #9640 is pending approval.

create implication food_insertion (1887) -> penetration (895510)

Reason: Technically this would be redundant once the food_insertion -> object insertion -> object penetration -> penetration tree gets set up, but it hasn't yet and might not, depending on if we're keeping those controversial intermediaries

I find it slightly amusing that the titular food penetration isn't penetration because it's not an object/body part penetrating a character's orifice

penetrating_pumpkin should probably be aliased to pumpkin_penetration (supported by penetrating food aliased to food penetration).

bitez said:
penetrating_pumpkin should probably be aliased to pumpkin_penetration (supported by penetrating food aliased to food penetration).

Alternatively the food penetration alias gets flipped to penetrating food, as *_penetration is ambiguous

snpthecat said:
create implication penetrating_pumpkin (480) -> pumpkin_masturbation (588)

This one could be problematic.

Living pumpkins would be sex?

Additionally, another character could be making somebody penetrate the pumpkin (does toying_partner apply to improvised sex toys?) which I don't think would be masturbation either.

faucet said:
This one could be problematic.

Living pumpkins would be sex?

That's a reasonable concern. Should food_penetration (and insertion) be unimplied from improvised sex toy, since it could be living food?

Additionally, another character could be making somebody penetrate the pumpkin (does toying_partner apply to improvised sex toys?) which I don't think would be masturbation either.

It implies sex toy, and improvised sex toy are not considered sex toys, but yeah in that situation it would be sex. should all sex toy tags have a improvised sex toy equivalent

watsit said:
penetrating_pumpkin is also used for jack-o'-lanterns, which don't imply pumpkin or food.

jack-o'-lantern dosn't imply pumpkin because you can make jack-o'-lanterns out of stuff that isn't a pumpkin.

watsit said:
penetrating_pumpkin is also used for jack-o'-lanterns, which don't imply pumpkin or food.

But penetrating_pumpkin should only be used when the jack-o'-lantern being penetrated is a pumpkin. If it's a squash, candy basket, or a turnip, penetrating_pumpkin wouldn't apply. Although I do see your point about food_penetration. If the pumpkin is a jack-o-'lantern, then would food_penetration really apply?

clawstripe said:
But penetrating_pumpkin should only be used when the jack-o'-lantern being penetrated is a pumpkin. If it's a squash, candy basket, or a turnip, penetrating_pumpkin wouldn't apply. Although I do see your point about food_penetration. If the pumpkin is a jack-o-'lantern, then would food_penetration really apply?

I mean, via implication, we consider all fruits food, regardless of their current edibility (and by extension all living_fruits food_creatures), and everyone was totally fine with that in the past. so... maybe?

maryland_p_sevenson said:
I mean, via implication, we consider all fruits food, regardless of their current edibility (and by extension all living_fruits food_creatures), and everyone was totally fine with that in the past. so... maybe?

So, jack-o'-lantern shouldn't imply food because not all jack-o'-lanterns are made from food items. A goodly number are made of plastic or are underwear, buckets, and other patterned things. The jack-o'-lantern is less an object than a pattern that is frequently associated with pumpkins, but ultimately is just a pattern.

But just as a jack-o'-lantern patterned pumpkin can be safely tagged penetrating_pumpkin, it can also be tagged as a food via the penetrating_pumpkin part. Of course, some pumpkins out there are fake but, through TWYS, we wouldn't be able to tell that unless it's specifically shown to us.

snpthecat said:
If this is the main problem with the implication, I wonder if penetrating this jack-o'-lantern candy basket would count as penetrating pumpkin

So, in that regard, this probably should be no. But would the average User understand it that way?

clawstripe said:
So, jack-o'-lantern shouldn't imply food because not all jack-o'-lanterns are made from food items. A goodly number are made of plastic or are underwear, buckets, and other patterned things. The jack-o'-lantern is less an object than a pattern that is frequently associated with pumpkins, but ultimately is just a pattern.

But just as a jack-o'-lantern patterned pumpkin can be safely tagged penetrating_pumpkin, it can also be tagged as a food via the penetrating_pumpkin part. Of course, some pumpkins out there are fake but, through TWYS, we wouldn't be able to tell that unless it's specifically shown to us.
So, in that regard, this probably should be no. But would the average User understand it that way?

alternately, we could just decide that not all fruit are food by default. it has been 4 years since my BUR got voted into oblivion, so maybe opinions have changed.

For what it's worth, I do think the penetrating_pumpkin -> pumpkin_masturbation -> pumpkin makes sense. The question about jack-o'-lanterns, to me, is pretty much independent. If the jack-o'-lantern is a pumpkin, it should be tagged as such, and with penetrating_pumpkin if relevant. It will then also be tagged food by implication, but that's independent of it being a jack-o'-lantern. In that case, and if there's penetration, it's also food_penetration because pumpkins don't stop being food when you carve a face on them.
On the other hand, a non-pumpkin jack-o'-lantern shouldn't be tagged with any pumpkin tags.

I agree the existence of living pumpkins muddles the question.

mxsz said:
it's also food_penetration because pumpkins don't stop being food when you carve a face on them.

why not? its not presented as edible, it's being used as a furniture item, not as a food. is a dried calabash made into a bottle food? it's a gourd, so it's a fruit. it's just-- there are definitely lines where things that could potentially be eaten are either not yet or no longer considered a food product.