The bulk update request #10975 is pending approval.

create implication written_consent (69) -> explicitly_stated_consent (1933)

Reason: This seems logical to me. About half of all written_consent posts are already tagged with explicitly_stated_consent anyway. The only post I could find where it might not apply is post #5052528, but honestly I'm not sure written_consent applies there in the first place.

re: imply chain written_consent_clothing -> explicitly_stated_consent
topic #54541

Hm. Should written_consent not imply explicitly_stated_consent, then?

beholding said:
Hm. Should written_consent not imply explicitly_stated_consent, then?

ummm... probably? either that or we need some tag to denote situations with false/forced consent.

dba_afish said:
ummm... probably? either that or we need some tag to denote situations with false/forced consent.

Coercion and/or blackmail

nin10dope said:
Coercion and/or blackmail

that'd probably apply to "forced", but I'm not sure either of those would work for the hypothetical situation of an unconscious character having a sticky note with the words "fuck me!" slapped on their ass when they're asleep.

dba_afish said:
that'd probably apply to "forced", but I'm not sure either of those would work for the hypothetical situation of an unconscious character having a sticky note with the words "fuck me!" slapped on their ass when they're asleep.

That's a good hypothetical scenario... I'm really struggling to think of a succinct tag for false consent. Unless we could literally call it false_consent where the premise is a "go ahead" message conveyed for someone but never by that same someone

The bulk update request #10992 is pending approval.

create implication written_consent (69) -> non-verbal_consent (79)
create implication written_consent_clothing (21) -> written_consent (69)
create implication written_consent_clothing (21) -> clothing (2218159)

Reason: I'd like to separate out these ones, since they seem less controversial.