The tag implication #67741 penis_in_mouth -> oral_penetration is pending approval.

Reason: wiki page says penis_in_mouth is a form of oral_penetration

Previously rejected, see topic #38694.

Bottom line, penis_in_mouth can also be non-penetrative.
post #3256972 post #2673047

thegreatwolfgang said:
Bottom line, penis_in_mouth can also be non-penetrative.

Eating sausage om nom nom

thegreatwolfgang said:
Previously rejected, see topic #38694.

Bottom line, penis_in_mouth can also be non-penetrative.
post #3256972 post #2673047

honestly, maybe we ought to split these off from *_in_mouth to another tag family. every other in tag is for something going into or already within an orifice.

something like *_between_lips might be better for posts like this.

dba_afish said:
honestly, maybe we ought to split these off from *_in_mouth to another tag family. every other in tag is for something going into or already within an orifice.

something like *_between_lips might be better for posts like this.

It already exists as sideways_oral, but then the question becomes would be exclude sideways_oral from penis_in_mouth just so that we can imply the latter with oral_penetration.

Also, "between lips"/sideway_oral posts aren't the only exceptions for considering oral_penetration.
A sufficiently large character (e.g., size_difference, macro/in_mouth) with an open_mouth can accommodate a smaller character's penis without entirely engulfing them to the point it can be considered as penetration.

wait a sec, wasn't the entire discussion around irrumatio being implied to penis_in_mouth based on if it was always oral_penetration?

dba_afish said:
wait a sec, wasn't the entire discussion around irrumatio being implied to penis_in_mouth based on if it was always oral_penetration?

I don't see the issue? It doesn't say anywhere that penis_in_mouth is purely for oral_penetration only.