The bulk update request #9674 is pending approval.

create implication pussyjob (3180) -> outercourse (707)
create implication thigh_sex (5755) -> outercourse (707)
create implication titfuck (33352) -> outercourse (707)
create implication hot_dogging (14422) -> outercourse (707)
create implication frottage (17127) -> outercourse (707)
create implication mutual_masturbation (2338) -> outercourse (707)

Reason: All the above acts involve non-penetrative ways of having sex, even if penetration does occur. Outercourse is the best way to group all these tags together, much like how we group fellatio and cunnilingus together under oral sex, gynomorph and andromorph under intersex, or even the vast array of sex positions from either the front or behind. Having the term outercourse implicated by all these tags would make the overlap between them clearer, as e621 has significantly less posts tagged with outercourse compared to each aforementioned tag.

Oh I really like this. As someone who enjoys a lot content with non-penetrative sex, looking it up has always been a massive pain in the ass with lack of handy blanket tag.

In an ideal world, it would also make sense to create a tag to unify all the non-erogenous body part x penis "*job" tags like handjob, footjob, wingjob, tailjob, bodyjob, etc., but there's really no good name for that.

crocogator said:
In an ideal world, it would also make sense to create a tag to unify all the non-erogenous body part x penis "*job" tags like handjob, footjob, wingjob, tailjob, bodyjob, etc., but there's really no good name for that.

We can make one, outerjob
Would it include things like thigh_sex (which had thighjob aliased to it)?

Also it seems that it isn't that consistent, handjob, tailjob, bodyjob, and thigh_sex requires a penis, but footjob and wingjob don't?

snpthecat said:

We can make one, outerjob
Would it include things like thigh_sex (which had thighjob aliased to it)?

Also it seems that it isn't that consistent, handjob, tailjob, bodyjob, and thigh_sex requires a penis, but footjob and wingjob don't?

To be honest, I didn't think this through very much; it was more just my initial thought for this BUR. I'm now questioning if anyone would use such a tag, and what would or would not count. If we do create such a tag, I do like the name outerjob.

EDIT: Oh, I missed that last part. I didn't realize that.

Oh yeah, for sure, I had no idea topic #33303 had been accepted or I would've created this BUR myself. An umbrella tag would be incredibly useful for those looking for non-penetrative sex.

The one thing currently preventing me from +1 voting, though:

i'veseensomuch said:
create implication mutual_masturbation (2198) -> outercourse (325)

Not too sure about this one - "Mutual masturbation is a form of sex where participants manually stimulate each other." - manual stimulation could include fisting, which is penetrative? Even fingering itself is currently in that grey area where it's not counted as penetration even though it really should be, which may change one day. I suppose one of the bigger problems with *_fingering tags is that they don't distinguish actually being inserted into the orifice versus just rubbing the outside.

Ideally, a post would be tagged correctly and the outercourse implication would come from the actual sex act (e.g. handjob) anyway.

faucet said:
Oh yeah, for sure, I had no idea topic #33303 had been accepted or I would've created this BUR myself. An umbrella tag would be incredibly useful for those looking for non-penetrative sex.

The one thing currently preventing me from +1 voting, though:

Not too sure about this one - "Mutual masturbation is a form of sex where participants manually stimulate each other." - manual stimulation could include fisting, which is penetrative? Even fingering itself is currently in that grey area where it's not counted as penetration even though it really should be, which may change one day. I suppose one of the bigger problems with *_fingering tags is that they don't distinguish actually being inserted into the orifice versus just rubbing the outside.

Ideally, a post would be tagged correctly and the outercourse implication would come from the actual sex act (e.g. handjob) anyway.

I added this one specifically because the existing wiki page for outercourse mentions it, so I figured that was part of the local e621 definition, since sex words mean different things to different groups. I absolutely see what you mean, and wouldn't be opposed to it not being included.

A few things:

• Yeah, remove mutual_masturbation, that could definitely include penetration. Like post #73652
• Why aren’t handjob/footjob/tailjob etc. included?
• tribadism should count too, no? I mean, if frottage counts…

spe said:

• tribadism should count too, no? I mean, if frottage counts…

Yep, makes sense.

spe said:

• Why aren’t handjob/footjob/tailjob etc. included?

Good question ^{(that I probably should've asked about earlier instead of implying they're somehow different in my first comment without any good reason to justify it)}. If we want to include relevant *job tags, there's a whole bunch to go through, and it'll likely get complicated.

• Some of them, like footjob and talonjob, claim that they are for stimulating ANY genitalia, implying they could be tagged for vaginal_penetration
• Some of them, like hoofjob and bellyjob, claim that they can be tagged for masturbation rather than sex
• Tentaclejob can be standalone tentacles rather than a part of a character, so it probably doesn't count as outercourse(?) Similarly, "magic" isn't a body part, so magicjob probably doesn't count(?)
• Some implication chains may need to be created. Why doesn't toejob imply footjob?

...So there would be a lot to go through. (See: The long list of *job tags )

spe said:

• Why aren’t handjob/footjob/tailjob etc. included?

Would it still count as outercourse if the penis is penetrating too? e.g. handjob+fellatio

watsit said:
Would it still count as outercourse if the penis is penetrating too? e.g. handjob+fellatio

That's a tough one. You could interpret it as two simultaneous sex acts (penetrative and non-penetrative) and have both outercourse and oral_penetration tagged, or treat it as one act (penetrative) which would make it impossible to imply handjob -> outercourse. I think I would prefer to go with the former, it's not incorrect and will make things a lot easier. The same goes for titfuck+fellatio and probably others too.

Honestly, for that image in particular, I'm a little dubious whether that's actually a handjob or just a hand_on_penis to hold it in place during fellatio - but the point still stands.

faucet said:
That's a tough one. You could interpret it as two simultaneous sex acts (penetrative and non-penetrative) and have both outercourse and oral_penetration tagged, or treat it as one act (penetrative) which would make it impossible to imply handjob -> outercourse. I think I would prefer to go with the former, it's not incorrect and will make things a lot easier. The same goes for titfuck+fellatio and probably others too.

I'll rather treat it as two distinct acts performed together. If it were a singular act, we wouldn't be referring to it as the combination of the two.
I think it'll be better if it implied outercourse

watsit said:
Would it still count as outercourse if the penis is penetrating too? e.g. handjob+fellatio

If that were the case, nothing could imply outercourse since you could arguably make a situation where it's both the non-penetrative act + *_penetration (pussyjob+vaginal_penetration for example)

crocogator said:

• Some of them, like footjob and talonjob, claim that they are for stimulating ANY genitalia, implying they could be tagged for vaginal_penetration
• Some of them, like hoofjob and bellyjob, claim that they can be tagged for masturbation rather than sex

These are wiki definitions written by random users, so I wouldn't put too much stock in their validity if they contradict established standards.

Anything suffixed *job seems to refer specifically to penile activity - some of them, like handjob, even imply penile. We should probably keep this consistent for all of them.

I think *job also implies a sex act, so hoofjob being used for masturbation seems wrong. We have auto*job tags for masturbatory forms instead, like autotailjob instead of tailjob. We should also probably keep this consistent.

• Tentaclejob can be standalone tentacles rather than a part of a character, so it probably doesn't count as outercourse(?) Similarly, "magic" isn't a body part, so magicjob probably doesn't count(?)

We have discussed changing the rule somewhat and allowing tentacles to be treated as characters if they appear to be biological. This would only exclude things like magic or mechanical tentacles, which probably should still not be considered sex.
But, like, is that really a 'tentaclejob' either? I don't really know. That could probably be left out for now.

spe said:
We have discussed changing the rule somewhat and allowing tentacles to be treated as characters [...]

To what extent? Inclusion in the character count? Or just as something that could be counted as "another" in tags like looking at another

spe said:
We have discussed changing the rule somewhat and allowing tentacles to be treated as characters if they appear to be biological. This would only exclude things like magic or mechanical tentacles, which probably should still not be considered sex.

this would be really great. along the same line, maybe we shouldn't consider any magical/mechanical things the base thing anyway (unless attached to something living or, like, "pseudo-living" like a robot or a fully-formed magical construct). like, for example, a magic_penis is honestly more like a dildo in a lot of situations.

maryland_p_sevenson said:
this would be really great. along the same line, maybe we shouldn't consider any magical/mechanical things the base thing anyway (unless attached to something living or, like, "pseudo-living" like a robot or a fully-formed magical construct). like, for example, a magic_penis is honestly more like a dildo in a lot of situations.

magic_penis seems to have an identity crisis. Quite a few posts are just a glowy penis attached to a character, like these:

"Magic" is rather vague in general, also. There's that quote, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Basically things we don't understand tend to be attributed to "magic". In fiction, there's no rules to what is or can be magic, no guidelines for if or how it's different from psychic powers, etc. Is a dragon breathing fire magic? Is telekinesis magic? When is something "magic" and when isn't it?