The tag implication #67273 invisible_sex -> invisible has been approved.

Reason: Well I mean, yeah you'd think

EDIT: The tag implication invisible_sex -> invisible (forum #447304) has been approved by @spe.

I mean, uh "Tag What You See", right?

It's not apparent in many instances that someone's invisible. Like this:
post #3857337 post #4318098
The former being open to interpretation to whether it's sex or some other thing going on, and the latter could be a magicjob or spontaneous_ejaculation from some kind of mind play.

And is often it used for translucent instead:
post #3596147 post #4404992 post #3767523

Invisibility also seems like something that's easy to mistag based on lore or interpretation, since definitionally being invisible is being unseen, thus not TWYS. It feels like, if taken to its logical conclusion, most instances of gaping_<orifice> could be tagged invisible_sex/invisible.

watsit said:
It's not apparent in many instances that someone's invisible. Like this:
post #3798510

how is it not clear that the two malo characters are invisible?

dba_afish said:
how is it not clear that the two malo characters are invisible?

I didn't realize that was a mirror and thought it was a different character in the background being molested (which helps highlight the interpretive nature of the problem). I replaced it with a couple other examples.

It looks like translucent is being used as a replacement for invisible in that second post by the artist

The tag implication invisible_sex -> invisible (forum #447304) has been approved by @spe.

There are quite a few mistags, but the tag itself should be valid as there are many posts that do fit the theme and leaving them entirely without a tag due to some mistags doesn’t seem helpful.