post #2408433
is getting tagged as tail_fetish despite nothing fetishistic going on. From what I can tell, the implication chain here is tail_bite -> tail_in_mouth -> tail_play -> tail_fetish. Going by the wikis, it looks like tail_in_mouth -> tail_play is incorrect, as the latter is "The use of a tail to sexually stimulate oneself or another character", whereas the former is simply "There is a mouth, and a part of a tail inside it" without any sexual connotation.

Alternatively, tail_play can be rewritten to not require sexual stimulation and just be more general activity with the tail (a dog chasing its tail, being pulled or dragged by the tail, etc), in which case tail_in_mouth -> tail_play could stay but tail_play -> tail_fetish should be de-implicated. I don't know which would be preferred.

watsit said:
Alternatively, tail_play can be rewritten to not require sexual stimulation and just be more general activity with the tail (a dog chasing its tail, being pulled or dragged by the tail, etc), in which case tail_in_mouth -> tail_play could stay but tail_play -> tail_fetish should be de-implicated.

Most of the other *_play tags (nipple play, food play, foot play) seem to involve a sexual element, but then petplay doesn't have that restriction which really messes up my argument.

I think I have the same complaint with finger_in_mouth -> finger_play/finger_fetish. There are way too many examples of the character just biting their own finger or doing other non-fetish things.

Thank you for bringing this up. I noticed it some time back, and totally forgot about it.

This is something I honestly found pretty frustrating, as there's plenty of examples where this has nothing to do with anything explicit or fetishistic. I understand that people would likely want a catch-all term to find all/most tail interactions, but in this instance, it doesn't seem quite the way to go about it.