The bulk update request #11770 is pending approval.

create implication knot_fucking (1801) -> knot (239179)
create implication knot_fucking (1801) -> penetration (931142)
create implication anal_knot_fucking (91) -> anal_penetration (380756)
create implication anal_knot_fucking (91) -> knot_fucking (1801)
create implication vaginal_knot_fucking (31) -> vaginal_penetration (335246)
create implication vaginal_knot_fucking (31) -> knot_fucking (1801)
create implication oral_knot_fucking (33) -> oral_penetration (109536)
create implication oral_knot_fucking (33) -> knot_fucking (1801)

Reason: Can't have knot_fucking without the knot and penetration.

I wonder if anal/vaginal/oral_knot_fucking are needed, and would be fine with knot_fucking+anal/vaginal/oral_penetration.

watsit said:
I wonder if anal/vaginal/oral_knot_fucking are needed, and would be fine with knot_fucking+anal/vaginal/oral_penetration.

The tag(s) guarantee there being that, the tag combo does not.

Could a knot be implied without being shown meaning knot fucking would be a valid tag but knot wouldn't be? For instance an animated post where the end part of the thrust requires noticeably more force and is slower, implying a knotting.

leafdapple said:
Could a knot be implied without being shown meaning knot fucking would be a valid tag but knot wouldn't be? For instance an animated post where the end part of the thrust requires noticeably more force and is slower, implying a knotting.

I had that same question awhile ago, but knot_fucking is only to be used if the knot is being "popped" in and out of the orifice, rather than true knotting.

manitka said:
I had that same question awhile ago, but knot_fucking is only to be used if the knot is being "popped" in and out of the orifice, rather than true knotting.

Well, I don't think that really answers my question, still.

leafdapple said:
Well, I don't think that really answers my question, still.

It is only for images where it is seen. which is why knot_fucking -animated goes from 1.8k approx posts to 15, the remaining posts are comics.

leafdapple said:
Could a knot be implied without being shown meaning knot fucking would be a valid tag but knot wouldn't be? For instance an animated post where the end part of the thrust requires noticeably more force and is slower, implying a knotting.

In the previous (now hidden) topic I believe I brought this up, as Manitka said knot fucking requires the knot to actually go in and out, which necessitates the knot being visible at some point, thus the implication should be valid

I could possibly see an argument for the knot being in and having action lines implying that it will be removed, but I still think that would be something like an implied pullout rather than knot fucking

leafdapple said:
Could a knot be implied without being shown meaning knot fucking would be a valid tag but knot wouldn't be? For instance an animated post where the end part of the thrust requires noticeably more force and is slower, implying a knotting.

I briefly touched on the idea on topic #44531, and the comment is that the tag should at least be tagged with knot.
Otherwise, if you can't see a knot, it would be no different than a character with say, an unusually thick_penis, struggling to put it in with every thrust.

In either case, you wouldn't tag knot or thick_penis on an obscured_penetration scenario anyways since it violates TWYS.
The best you can do in that case is tag tight_fit to indicate the struggle.

would there really be no possible way of depicting a situation where a knot entering and exiting a character without the knot being visible? if we can say that knotting and even penetration in general can be depicted without either the orifice or the thing entering it being explicitly visible, I don't know why the same wouldn't be true for knot_fucking.

I feel like seeing the change in shape of an abdominal_bulge or honestly just the smoothness and rhythm of the characters' thrusts could warrant the addition of this tag without the knot being actually visible.

dba_afish said:
would there really be no possible way of depicting a situation where a knot entering and exiting a character without the knot being visible? if we can say that knotting and even penetration in general can be depicted without either the orifice or the thing entering it being explicitly visible, I don't know why the same wouldn't be true for knot_fucking.

Knotting can be reasonably inferred by the way the penis is held in the orifice. Since it's stationary and held inside, you won't necessarily need to see it, particularly with a knot_root, sheath, or some other visual element around the penis or orifice to tell there's a knot. In comparison, I don't see how knot_fucking can be reasonably inferred without seeing the knot, since knot fucking is when the knot is continually pulled out and pushed in; if you can see around the penis or orifice to tell it's a knotted penis, you would also see the knot being pushed in or pulled out.

dba_afish said:
would there really be no possible way of depicting a situation where a knot entering and exiting a character without the knot being visible? if we can say that knotting and even penetration in general can be depicted without either the orifice or the thing entering it being explicitly visible, I don't know why the same wouldn't be true for knot_fucking.

I feel like seeing the change in shape of an abdominal_bulge or honestly just the smoothness and rhythm of the characters' thrusts could warrant the addition of this tag without the knot being actually visible.

When discussing about implying knot_in_sheath to knot on the other thread, we discussed about the possibility of including "obscured" knots as part of knot in general.
The general idea is that it should be reconsidered (to now include it) and discussed further.

In this case with knot_fucking, it should at the very least have some indication that a knot is present, like through an obvious knot-shaped abdominal_bulge as you have mentioned.
Otherwise, it shouldn't be tagged as such if you can't tell that a knot is present as per TWYS like I mentioned earlier.