Posted under Tags
BUR #61941 is pending approval.
create implication stealth_footjob -> stealth_sex
create implication stealth_footjob -> footjob
create implication stealth_fingering -> fingering
Based on the fingering wiki, I don't think stealth_fingering can be implied to stealth_sex, because it could also be stealth masturbation.
There are a few cases where it's a female footjob instead of a regular footjob.
CrossbowArcanePlus said in forum #452390:
create implication stealth_footjob -> stealth_sex
In theory couldn't this also be stealth masturbation instead? autofootjob
CrossbowArcanePlus said in forum #452390:
create implication stealth_fingering -> fingering
Does implied fingering count as fingering? post #11605911
evazion said in forum #452500:
There are a few cases where it's a female footjob instead of a regular footjob.
Ah, OK. I had wrongly assumed footjob was for either gender. Reading the wiki properly now I see that was a mistake.
Toks said in forum #452508:
In theory couldn't this also be stealth masturbation instead? autofootjob
That's a fair point. I do wonder now how that impacts stealth fellatio with the possibility of autofellatio. There is also the possibility of autocunnilingus, autopaizuri. Currently their stealth version implies stealth_sex, but on this line of thinking they could also be stealth_masturbation.
Toks said in forum #452508:
Does implied fingering count as fingering? post #11605911
I read around a few implied_* wikis and it doesn't seem to ever be clearly stated whether implied_{act} should also be tagged as {act}.
The most popular implied_* tag, implied sex, doesn't have an implied_sex -> sex implication. The wiki is just ambiguous enough to stay confusing, not saying anything on whether you should tag sex except:
When the character is clearly being shown to have been sexually penetrated but the source of penetration is not shown (such as being out of the frame), simply tag sex instead.
But does that "simply" mean that you tag sex instead of implied_sex because the sex tag is simpler for being unqualified, or does it mean that you would have tagged implied_sex and sex, but now you instead only need one tag, sex, which is simpler because it's fewer tags.
Roughly 1 in 5 implied_sex images are also tagged with sex. Of course some of these may have two panels or something, one implied one not, but I think most of those are not going to be like that and more down to the ambiguity of whether an image needs implied_{act} and {act} or not.
The implied fellatio wiki doesn't speak on whether you should tag fellatio at all. About a third of all implied_fellatio images also have fellatio tagged.
With this point too I'm thinking about how the other stealth acts apply to this. Here's an post tagged cunnilingus post #7491820, but it actually shows implied cunnilingus from what I can tell, and can't not have the cunnilingus tag because of the way implications are currently set up. It seems to me it should have the stealth_cunnilingus tag though. This is like the archetypal image of what I would expect to see searching that tag.
Not sure whether stealth_{act} should lose the {act} tag implications, or whether images showing implied_{act} should just not be tagged with their stealth_{act} tag. It depends on how the implied thing I wrote about here should work.
I think the points made by you both negate all of the implications I put forward, but the reasoning behind your points might mean we want to unimply some of the other stealth_sex adjacent tags and maybe clarify whether implied acts should be tagged with the acts themselves too.
Possibly we have a lot of implied_sex, implied_fellatio, etc. posts which are incorrectly over-tagged with sex, fellatio, etc., or the opposite where actually all of the rest of those posts are under-tagged and need the act tagged, which can be done with an implication.
CrossbowArcanePlus said in forum #452510:
I think the points made by you both negate all of the implications I put forward, but the reasoning behind your points might mean we want to unimply some of the other stealth_sex adjacent tags and maybe clarify whether implied acts should be tagged with the acts themselves too.
Possibly we have a lot of implied_sex, implied_fellatio, etc. posts which are incorrectly over-tagged with sex, fellatio, etc., or the opposite where actually all of the rest of those posts are under-tagged and need the act tagged, which can be done with an implication.
And similarly if female_footjob doesn't count as footjob then some footjob implications should be removed. For example post #4817085 is a female_footjob mistagged as footjob because of the cooperative_footjob -> footjob implication.
Or, alternatively, we could decide to not keep any of these tags separate anymore and just imply female_footjob -> footjob, implied_fingering -> fingering, etc. Then the existing and proposed implications would be fine.
