The bulk update request #10345 is active.

remove implication cervical_penetration (5880) -> vaginal_penetration (337505)
remove implication double_cervical (64) -> double_vaginal (2156)
create alias anal_womb (11) -> anal_uterus (100)
create implication anal_uterus (100) -> uterus (20263)

Followup:

imply cervical_penetration -> penetration
imply double_cervical -> double_penetration

Reason: anal wombs are a thing, so you can have cervical penetration without vaginal:

post #2637238 post #4460899 post #5113119

also in something I just uploaded a... nipple womb I think?

post #5341286

EDIT: The bulk update request #10345 (forum #438338) has been approved by @spe.

There's also the occasional "prey fucking the cervix" image. I don't believe that vore normally qualifies as penetration, so the implication is wrong in these cases.

post #2831158 post #3130267 post #4896531 post #4153778

I mean, the cervix is there regardless of vaginal or anal or.. nipple... didn't know that was a thing (will be looking up more later)

Anyway. If someone wishes to look up vaginal cervical penetration without anal cervical penetration or vise versa, they would have black listed anal or vaginal. I think that cervical penetration should be left in because regardless of where the cervix happens to be, as it's being penetrated. This holds true for unbirth as well as the prey's penis or appendage is penetrating the cervix.

Unless I misunderstood the point of the post entirely, in which case feel free to ignore me :)

n1ghtfury said:
I mean, the cervix is there regardless of vaginal or anal or.. nipple... didn't know that was a thing (will be looking up more later)

Anyway. If someone wishes to look up vaginal cervical penetration without anal cervical penetration or vise versa, they would have black listed anal or vaginal. I think that cervical penetration should be left in because regardless of where the cervix happens to be, as it's being penetrated. This holds true for unbirth as well as the prey's penis or appendage is penetrating the cervix.

Unless I misunderstood the point of the post entirely, in which case feel free to ignore me :)

I actually have no idea what you're trying to say

pleaseletmein said:
I actually have no idea what you're trying to say

Is this request to change cervical penetration into vaginal penetration or to separate them into their own independent tags?

n1ghtfury said:
Is this request to change cervical penetration into vaginal penetration or to separate them into their own independent tags?

Currently cervical implication implies vaginal penetration. This means that every time cervical penetration is added to a post, vaginal penetration is automatically added as well and can't be removed.

This BUR is getting rid of that implication, so that vaginal penetration isn't stuck inaccurately on certain posts like those linked above.

pleaseletmein said:
Currently cervical implication implies vaginal penetration. This means that every time cervical penetration is added to a post, vaginal penetration is automatically added as well and can't be removed.

This BUR is removing that implication, so that vaginal penetration isn't stuck inaccurately on certain posts like those linked above.

Ok, I misunderstood. My comment was while I was under the impression they were going to be lumped together in some way. Apologies

They should be separated

fifteen said:
There's also the occasional "prey fucking the cervix" image. I don't believe that vore normally qualifies as penetration, so the implication is wrong in these cases.

post #2831158 post #3130267 post #4896531 post #4153778

I think penetration inside vore should still be tagged as penetration, since that’s different than regular vore. Actually, should that get its own tag too…?

The bulk update request #10345 (forum #438338) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10360 is active.

create implication cervical_penetration (5880) -> penetration (937493)
create implication double_cervical (64) -> double_penetration (35745)

Reason: Followup

EDIT: The bulk update request #10360 (forum #438666) has been approved by @spe.

spe said:
I think penetration inside vore should still be tagged as penetration, since that’s different than regular vore. Actually, should that get its own tag too…?

I think that's what they were saying, that this situation should count as cervical penetration but not vaginal

pleaseletmein said:
I think that's what they were saying, that this situation should count as cervical penetration but not vaginal

Right, I think I see what was meant now.

The bulk update request #10360 (forum #438666) has been approved by @spe.

pleaseletmein said:
I think that's what they were saying, that this situation should count as cervical penetration but not vaginal

Yes, that's what I meant there. Thanks for passing that BUR.