@Admiral_Pectoral: Why do you think this picture (and post #4892304 and post #4796011) qualifies for bed_invitation? The tag has a clear, visually distinctive definition: Someone lifting_covers (arguably a missing tag implication) in a way that seems intended to invite someone else into bed. That is also how it's generally being used in practice. The guy in this picture is just lying there, and while the guy in the other two is clearly beckoning, he's not lifting anything. There are other perfectly good tags that can be applied when someone is behaving in an "inviting" way while on_bed or under_covers (come_hither, presenting, etc.).
@Admiral_Pectoral: Why do you think this picture (and post #4892304 and post #4796011) qualifies for bed_invitation? The tag has a clear, visually distinctive definition: Someone lifting_covers (arguably a missing tag implication) in a way that seems intended to invite someone else into bed. That is also how it's generally being used in practice. The guy in this picture is just lying there, and while the guy in the other two is clearly beckoning, he's not lifting anything. There are other perfectly good tags that can be applied when someone is behaving in an "inviting" way while on_bed or under_covers (come_hither, presenting, etc.).
Because I think a tag named bed invitation should not be restricted to scenarios including a blanket. Nobody would get that from the tag name alone. We all should know by now that it's a bad idea to have a tag only work if users read wikis (we know they don't).
That's the reason why it's not implied I think. If you disagree feel free to open a forum topic about it.
Because I think a tag named bed invitation should not be restricted to scenarios including a blanket. Nobody would get that from the tag name alone. We all should know by now that it's a bad idea to have a tag only work if users read wikis (we know they don't).
That's the reason why it's not implied I think. If you disagree feel free to open a forum topic about it.
Just because you disagree with a tag's wiki doesn't mean you can just ignore it. You should be opening a thread about it if you think it should be changed, not telling other users to bring it up in the forums to lobby for it to be used the way its wiki says to use it.
Because I think a tag named bed invitation should not be restricted to scenarios including a blanket. Nobody would get that from the tag name alone. We all should know by now that it's a bad idea to have a tag only work if users read wikis (we know they don't).
That's the reason why it's not implied I think. If you disagree feel free to open a forum topic about it.
I'm seconding what blindVigil wrote. Even if some users ignore the wiki and apply tags however they please, the appropriate response is not to adopt their behavior as the norm (and invite those who disagree to try and stop you). Without agreed-upon definitions, tags are just meaningless labels. Self-evident tag definitions is completely unrealistic as a general goal, because most two- or three-word phrases will have different connotations for different people, and many taggable concepts will not have any obvious name.
In the specific case of bed_invitation, I believe that the established definition is far more useful than having another fuzzy tag to apply when someone is "in the mood for love" (besides the ones I've already mentioned, there are in_heat, aroused, seductive_smile, naughty_face and probably more).