The tag implication #68185 double_penetration_triple_penetration_quadruple_penetration_quintuple_penetration -> multi_penetration has been rejected.

Reason: These are all penetrative quantities, and the multi_penetration requires 2 or more

EDIT: The tag implication double_penetration_triple_penetration_quadruple_penetration_quintuple_penetration -> multi_penetration (forum #455919) has been rejected by @spe.

Aside from the borked implication request, multi_penetration is different from multiple_penetration which has more posts. In concept multi_penetration is used solely for when one character is penetrating multiple orifices, but in practice double_penetration can be either two characters penetrating one character (multiple penetration), or one character penetrating two orifices (multi_penetration). That's most likely why they don't imply either of those tags, as they can be applicable to both.
That being said, multi_penetration is kind of a bad tag name considering how similar it is to multiple_penetration.

moonlit-comet said:
That being said, multi_penetration is kind of a bad tag name considering how similar it is to multiple_penetration.

It could be renamed to penetrating_with_multiple, which would clarify by the name that it's describing the one doing the penetrating and that they're doing it with multiple... something. I'd like to alias multi_penetration and multiple_penetration together if the meanings are split into more distinct and self-evident tags first.

The tag implication double_penetration_triple_penetration_quadruple_penetration_quintuple_penetration -> multi_penetration (forum #455919) has been rejected by @spe.