The bulk update request #11789 is active.

remove implication pegging (4189) -> anal_penetration (380849)
remove implication pegging (4189) -> male/female (741164)
remove implication pegging (4189) -> male_penetrated (248386)
remove implication pegging (4189) -> sex (1135475)
remove implication pegging (4189) -> sex_toy_penetration (8)
create implication pegging (4189) -> female_penetrating_male (5320)

Reason: Removes many redundant implications from pegging and adds some new ones.

The tag female_penetrating_male (new) implies:
- female_penetrating (new)
- male/female
- male_penetrated
- sex

Since we limit our definition of pegging to strictly females penetrating strictly males, these will always hold true.

The tag sex_toy_in_ass implies:
- anal_penetration
- object_in_ass
- sex_toy_insertion

sex_toy_insertion is effectively synonymous with the removed implication sex_toy_penetration. Those will be cleaned up in a later series of BURs.

EDIT: The bulk update request #11789 (forum #460393) has been approved by @spe.

I still stand by my previous statements on this topic, most recently from topic #46526, but more or less as far back as 2018.

this tag's definition is weird and silly, no other tag on the entire website (aside from ones that explicitly state genders in the name) are gender-exclusive, let alone double-gender pairing-exclusive. it ought to either be redefined to include other gender categories, or aliased away entirely.

Agreeing with dba for all the reasons we discussed in the thread I made [linked above]. Pegging is a problematic tag in its usage and definition and I feel like it needs to be either completely reworked or done away with.

I'm not averse to reworking, removing, or aliasing away the pegging tag if and when some agreed-upon consensus is fleshed out and the right implications are set up, but this is a BUR about correcting duplicate implications and adding a missing one based on its current definition. The scope is narrow and focused on technical corrections.

If the pegging tag is altered or aliased, the added work required to undo the added female_penetrating_male and female_penetrating tags over non-male/female posts would be 30 minutes-1 hour for one person. This is accounting for needing to go over any post with pegging and non-m/f pairings since the tag already implies male/female. The extra work boils down to needing to highlight an extra portion of each tag field and deleting it or running a tag script to untag the search results on most or all of the same posts before this BUR. It is basically a non-destructive change regardless of whether the pegging definition is altered or remains the same.

We could just throw away the gender requirement entirely and just rework it to "anal penetration of a partner using a sex toy worn in the manner of a penis"? After all, it's conceivable that an andromorph could take the place of the female or even a male could wear a strap-on and use that instead of his own equipment, for whatever reason.

I feel that pegging is too tied to a role-reversal kink with normal straight sex to apply it more broadly. Applied more broadly, it's little more than strapon anal_penetration, whereas pegging brings to mind a straight couple where the female is taking the typically male role in penetrative sex, where the power dynamics are reversed.

clawstripe said:
We could just throw away the gender requirement entirely and just rework it to "anal penetration of a partner using a sex toy worn in the manner of a penis"? After all, it's conceivable that an andromorph could take the place of the female or even a male could wear a strap-on and use that instead of his own equipment, for whatever reason.

that's kinda just strapon_sex, at that point I think. _{(although then there's the issue of feeldoes, which, honestly, maybe should also be counted as a subset of strapons or at least count them for strapon_sex, for simplicity purposes. despite them not physically having a strap, because, like, they are called "strapless strapons", so...but that's kind of a whole other discussion.)}

as I understand it, pegging is specifically supposed to be a role reversal thing, the only way that the tag would make sense to keep would be to retain that in some way, otherwise it'd be best to just alias it. traditionally, this comes out as it meaning:

a situation where, through use of a sex_toy a male is being penetrated by a female in a "normal" hip-to-ass arrangement.

in my opinion, the only way to have this tag really adhere to the site's general tag philosophy, while not entirely destroying it's original definition and purpose, would be to replace "male" and "female" and instead define the tag using each party's genitalia and/or lack thereof. at the very least I believe that the tag sould be applicable situations where the receiving character has a penis and no vulva (i.e. male and gynomorph) and the, uhh-- pitching(?) character has a vulva and no penis (i.e. female and andromorph)*.

The bulk update request #11789 (forum #460393) has been approved by @spe.

auto_moderator said:
The bulk update request #11789 (forum #460393) has been approved by @spe.

odd lol

Regardless of your thoughts about the pegging tag as a whole, this BUR is just trying to clean up the implications and is perfectly valid according to the current definition of the tag. Altering or removing the tag is better discussed in a thread specifically about that topic.

spe said:
Regardless of your thoughts about the pegging tag as a whole, this BUR is just trying to clean up the implications and is perfectly valid according to the current definition of the tag. Altering or removing the tag is better discussed in a thread specifically about that topic.

i said odd cause it had 3 down and only 2 up

funkwolfie said:
i said odd cause it had 3 down and only 2 up

I wasn’t replying to you specifically with my last post, but the votes are irrelevant in this case.