About trembling penis, I think the name isn't good and should get a rename or alias to twitching penis. Depending on others opinions, I'll edit the BUR accordingly.
Do let me know if I missed any penis tag(s) that need the implication.
Edit: penis grab works for bulges to so I'll change the BUR to request an alias to bulge_grab.
This is awfully reminiscent of topic #13269. Most of the proposed implications to penis have obvious counterexamples in the form of posts where only a bulge is visible and not an exposed penis.
For penis_grab and penis_on_face I just grabbed the examples I used in the other topic, since nothing about these tags has changed in the intervening years. A basic user removed the "This tag applies even when the penis is not exposed" from the penis_on_face wiki for some reason, but they did so without any discussion so I'm prepared to disregard their opinion.
This is awfully reminiscent of topic #13269. Most of the proposed implications to penis have obvious counterexamples in the form of posts where only a bulge is visible and not an exposed penis.
If you ask me I think anything tag with "penis" in it should be used for posts that actually have a penis in them, not a bulge or erection_under_clothes. There's a reason both erection and erection_under_clothes don't imply penis. So these are actually just mistags if you ask me. At least according to how the general tags for penises work like erection, flaccid and penis.
I left out penis awe intentionally because I saw it used for just a silhouette and not the actual penis. I think this calls for a clarification on the wiki because we don't need two tags for the same type of pose.
I think it's time to bring the old saying again "tag what you see, not what you know" Who says there's a penis in there? At least for the first example, it should be crotch_grab. I did recheck and it seems the wiki clarifies that it can be a bulge too, but to be honest the tag could use an alias to bulge_grab because I needed that tag so many times and never found it. It's not intuitive for new users. Anyway I removed it from the BUR, and I would be OK to add an alias for all these tags that can include bulges and not just exposed penises to make this less confusing for everyone involved.
That doesn't look like it's on her face to me. It's just your typical overtagging or there is no tag to perfectly convey that. A new tag can always be made for things we cannot tag properly, just like how I made bulges_touching, chest_harness and various other pectoral tags when there was no way to tag them properly with our current tags.
If you ask me I think anything tag with "penis" in it should be used for posts that actually have a penis in them, not a bulge or erection_under_clothes.
This is, as I said in the older thread, splitting hairs. Insisting that the penis must be visible just because the tag's name has "penis" in it doesn't benefit anyone. All it does is make it harder to search for posts where the penis can't be seen but exactly the same action is taking place.
Why would flaccid be used when the penis isn't exposed?
If you can tell from the outline that it's flaccid, why wouldn't you tag it flaccid?
I think it's time to bring the old saying again "tag what you see, not what you know" Who says there's a penis in there? This should be crotch_grab. Or a new tag should be made for this, just like how I made bulges_touching and chest_harness when there was no way to tag them properly with our current tags.
I'm curious what else you think they're grabbing, if not a penis. Crotch_grab is probably fine for posts like these, though.
That doesn't look like it's on her face to me. It's just your typical overtagging.
Seems to me like it's pretty obviously pressed against her cheek. Moreso than some of the penis_over_one_eye posts you want to implicate penis_on_face, anyway. At any rate, there are more recent examples like post #3067515 and post #4097589 where there can be no doubt that penis-to-face contact is taking place through the pants.
OK I understand your point. I just want to say though, I'm only here to find solutions and to make using everything clearer for everyone. This BUR can be edited to fit whatever we find most agreeable.
Ideally I wanted to make the tags work the same way as the already established erection and erection under clothes, because there's no such tag as flaccid under clothes, and that makes sense, because that's the natural state of it most of the time. If we were to use flaccid under clothes, the least we can do is add that part to the wiki and not leave it up in the air.
For example if we want flaccid to be usable for penis that isn't exposed, we can add something like this to the wiki: "You can also use this tag if the outline of the penis is visible under clothes, which is usually the case in see-through, wet or skin tight clothes". Or we could make the tag flaccid under clothes I suppose. @.Dank agreed with the first suggestion here on the official discord.
Regardless, I only did this BUR because the wikis are so barebones and vague. Let's suggest solutions to remove the ambiguity and move on.
Provence said:
What about tags like bulge on face so we have a distinction between exposed and non-exposed penisses for these scenarios?
We have two main options: 1) Make new separate tags for bulges and penises just like Penises touching and bulges touching. 2) Make aliases that include bulges in certain penis_* tags, and/or add a line about it in each wiki, whichever is more appropriate.
I'm fine with either as long as reach an agreement. What does everyone else think?
OK I understand your point. I just want to say though, I'm only here to find solutions and to make using everything clearer for everyone. This BUR can be edited to fit whatever we find most agreeable.
Ideally I wanted to make the tags work the same way as the already established erection and erection under clothes, because there's no such tag as flaccid under clothes, and that makes sense, because that's the natural state of it most of the time. If we were to use flaccid under clothes, the least we can do is add that part to the wiki and not leave it up in the air.
For example if we want flaccid to be usable for penis that isn't exposed, we can add something like this to the wiki: "You can also use this tag if the outline of the penis is visible under clothes, which is usually the case in see-through, wet or skin tight clothes". Or we could make the tag flaccid under clothes I suppose. @.Dank agreed with the first suggestion here on the official discord.
Regardless, I only did this BUR because the wikis are so barebones and vague. Let's suggest solutions to remove the ambiguity and move on.
We have two main options: 1) Make new separate tags for bulges and penises just like Penises touching and bulges touching. 2) Make aliases that include bulges in certain penis_* tags, and/or add a line about it in each wiki, whichever is more appropriate.
I mean, we already have precedence with bulge tags. I say number 1 is the more logical approach here.
I mean, we already have precedence with bulge tags. I say number 1 is the more logical approach here.
I think it would be better overall if anyone is looking for that specific thing, but I suppose it could be argued that these situations are a lot more rare. I don't mind in either case.
I think it would be better overall if anyone is looking for that specific thing, but I suppose it could be argued that these situations are a lot more rare. I don't mind in either case.
I mean, someone has to populate these tags anyways :3.
What about tags like bulge on face so we have a distinction between exposed and non-exposed penisses for these scenarios?
I don't see much value in this. If you look at things like flaccid -penis or penis_on_face -penis, you can see that bulges only make up a handful of cases. And the penis tag is rarely forgotten, so not having penis implications doesn't do much harm. This would basically mean that nearly all penis tags would have to be split into penis and bulge versions.
