[APPROVED] Tag implication: standing_sex -> standing

tag implication #9125 standing_sex -> standing has been approved.

Reason: Hopefully obvious - standing sex implies the characters are standing. Since standing_sex has so few entries (< 1000), users are far more likely to use the standing tag when searching, so it's important that it's applied to those posts. Additionally, a random sampling of a half dozen of these posts indicates that people aren't adding the standing tag manually when they add the standing_sex tag, so automatically adding it becomes more important.

EDIT: This tag implication is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: The tag implication standing_sex -> standing (forum #154101) has been approved by @Type-kun.

Standing_sex may require some cleanup if this implication gets made. Does anyone use standing for characters who are lying over the side of a table or other article of furniture like in post #2365677? I sure don't.

iridescent_slime said:

Standing_sex may require some cleanup if this implication gets made. Does anyone use standing for characters who are lying over the side of a table or other article of furniture like in post #2365677? I sure don't.

The standing sex wiki even states it shouldn't be used on posts like that.

I don't mind approving it but I'd like to ask someone to garden through standing_sex -standing first and remove inappropriately used standing_sex.

This tag implication is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

That should be it clean, anything that was leaning onto the top of an object is retagged for leaning_on* bent_over. There's just a couple ambigious parent/child:
post #3351151 - against rather than ontop
post #3289234 - unclear if that arm is on or just against the table

The tag implication standing_sex -> standing (forum #154101) has been approved by @Type-kun.