Implied_Futanari Usage

There's been a few edit wars going on recently with posts that some users think are implied futanari and others think are just plain futanari. post #4498724 is the most contentious example. If the image was just the upper right part, implied futanari would be entirely appropriate. However, in my opinion, the dripping, cum-filled pussy in the lower left part makes it very clear that this is simply just futanari, nothing "implied" about it.

Those who disagree ( @SSJG , @Toks ), seem to be going by the definition "anything that doesn't actually show a penis is implied." I don't think this definition accurately represents how the implied futanari tag is intended to be used. It should, in my opinion, be used only when you can't tell with 100% certainty whether the girl has a dick or not. In post #4498724, we can be 100% certain, so there's no need for implied futanari. And please don't try to argue it might be a squirting strap-on, there's no suggestion whatsoever that there's a strap-on present and we all know it's intended to be futa.

While I can acknowledge that post #4498724 might be an edge case, the same users adding implied futanari to that post have also been adding it to posts which are very very obviously (in my opinion) not implied futanari: e.g. post #4419893, post #3051964, post #1706183, post #4589834, post #4472147, post #4177846, and post #4616201. So clearly we need a bit more clarity and consensus on how this tag is supposed to be used.

I've mostly been going off the wiki definition, which says that implied_futanari is simply any instance of what appears to be futanari but there's no visible penis, all other information be damned. I do admit I've mistagged a few pictures because they only showed a bulge rather than a bare penis. post #4498724 fits the definition of implied_futanari perfectly as there is no visible penis on Edel despite its existence being implied. The wiki definition even states that even if a penis is visible in a related picture, the ones where it's not visible should still be tagged implied_futanari, and that artist confirmation doesn't change anything either.
So I don't think the tag is meant to indicate "this character may or not be a futanari", only that no penis is visible in the image itself, even if context indicates it's there.

The wiki is not the word of God, and we need to apply common sense when tagging. "implied futanari" is meant to be for posts where it's not immediately obvious that the character is a futa. If there's cum and a stomach bulge, that's enough proof that it's futanari.

This site has a very bad tendency of splitting hairs and arguing endlessly over definitions made up by someone 10 years ago to fill an empty wiki page.
First implied futanari said there had to be a penis, and people kept adding it to pictures with visible testicles or bulge, like post #4419893 or post #3051964.
I edited it to say just genitals, and now people are ignoring stuff like exploding cum and huge stomach bulges because technically there's no visible genitals there.

Do you REALLY think any of the examples provided in this thread are implied anything?

Come on. There's no need to jump through mental hoops to try and figure out if there's a hidden strapless double dildo that squirts starch. If you're reasonably sure it's a futanari just tag it futanari, implied futanari should be reserved for posts like post #4517849 where there's no actual suggestion that there's a penis.
If you can tell there's penetration or ejaculation going on, you should not tag it implied anything. If you wouldn't tag it implied sex you shouldn't tag it implied futanari.

The current situation is so absurd that about half of implied futanari has the futa tag anyway: implied_futanari futa_with_*. If you're sure enough for futa with female you should be sure enough to not tag implied futanari.

implied_futanari is a concept made up entirely by this site, so in this case there is no common sense to apply, the wiki page definition is really the only thing that defines it. If that tag was meant for posts where it's ambiguous whether it's futanari or not, then it has never been made clear, as the only definition claimed that all that's needed is the lack of a visible penis (making it "tag what you can't see", something purely for individual images and not larger context). There has also never been consent about implied_futanari being mutually exclusive with regular futanari.