Makes so much sense. "pussy licking" even aliases to cunnilingus.

If it's mostly/fully covered by a mouth or tongue, then we don't tag pussy.

A pussy is not always shown during cunnilingus.
Like
post #500307

post #494398

and

post #481734

In none of these images can a pussy be seen, but the act of cunnilingus can clearly be seen.

Moon_Moon said:
A pussy is not always shown during cunnilingus.

^ This ^

That's like having fellatio imply penis. It's a bad implication.

SirAntagonist said:
That's like having fellatio imply penis. It's a bad implication.

And this sorta response is why people are disparaging about TWYS; because of answers like this that expect knowledge of the depths of the tag system and arguments. Moon Moon- FREAKIN' MOON MOON!- actually bothered to give examples and state why it was actually a bad implication, not just a reference to the alternate equipment version of the tag as an example of a bad implication. Kudos, Moon Moon.

123easy said:
And this sorta response is why people are disparaging about TWYS; because of answers like this that expect knowledge of the depths of the tag system and arguments.

If you participate in enough tagging discussions, it's easy to assume a certain "institutional knowledge". It's also sometimes frustrating to revisit well-worn topics as if they've never been argued before.

But yes, Moon Moon's response is a good example of how to show that an implication is inappropriate, and I agree that these two tags should not be implicated together.

123easy said:
Moon Moon- FREAKIN' MOON MOON!- actually bothered to give examples and state why it was actually a bad implication, not just a reference to the alternate equipment version of the tag as an example of a bad implication. Kudos, Moon Moon.

What can I say, I get the thing.

123easy said:
And this sorta response is why people are disparaging about TWYS; because of answers like this that expect knowledge of the depths of the tag system and arguments. Moon Moon- FREAKIN' MOON MOON!- actually bothered to give examples and state why it was actually a bad implication, not just a reference to the alternate equipment version of the tag as an example of a bad implication. Kudos, Moon Moon.

If someone suggests an implication, I expect them to have some knowledge of the tagging system.

Creating a implication suggestion while not knowing about TWYS is like trying to bake a cake while having no idea what an oven is. The reason people are disparaging about the TWYS rule is because most people don't read the rules in the first place.

SirAntagonist said:
If someone suggests an implication, I expect them to have some knowledge of the tagging system.

Creating a implication suggestion while not knowing about TWYS is like trying to bake a cake while having no idea what an oven is. The reason people are disparaging about the TWYS rule is because most people don't read the rules in the first place.

The people making the suggestion should understand, but the common lurker who randomly checks the thread probably isn't.

pointless argument is pointless