Implicating anatomically_correct_penis → horsecock
Link to implication

Reason:

Same things, if it is a horsecock its anatomically correct.

Against.
That would implicate all anatomically correct penii to horsecock, so you probably meant it other way around.

But even then, not all horsecocks are anatomically correct: for instance, humans with horsecock should not get that tag. And then there's hyper cocks, etc..

Dawmino just posted a perfect example:
post #554039

I'm afraid I have to disagree. Not all anatomically_correct_penises are horsecocks. Some are feline, some canine, some might be bovine, and, yes, some are human.

If you meant the implication the other way (horsecock → anatomically_correct_penis), then not all horsecocks are attached to horses (especially considering the mix-and-match genitalia commonly shown on furry characters). If a horsecock is not attached to a horse, but to a bovine, for example, then it won't be anatomically correct.

All good points. To add another: I've also seen horsecock tagged to dicks that appear to be some sort of middle ground between equine and humanoid. Massive size, a medial ring (and sometimes spots) but a decidedly bulbous tip, stuff like that. So that's not very anatomically-correct at all, but because we have no tag for hybrid penises I can see why people would tag it a horsecock.

Jugofthat said:
All good points. To add another: I've also seen horsecock tagged to dicks that appear to be some sort of middle ground between equine and humanoid. Massive size, a medial ring (and sometimes spots) but a decidedly bulbous tip, stuff like that. So that's not very anatomically-correct at all, but because we have no tag for hybrid penises I can see why people would tag it a horsecock.

Particularly when someone really isn't a fan of them and they're looking at untagged posts.

The whole anatomically_correct* and the rest really needs a revision anyway. It's not really that clear what shouldn't be marked that way and the wiki seems to imply that all genitalia that's even somewhat more animal-like than human-like should get the tag (as long as it matches the species), which is really a poor definition.

I'll see if I can put together a proper wiki to put forth as a framework for defining it, but it'll take me a while to gather all the various genitalia (or at least the popular ones for now).

Implication denied.

furrypickle said:
Implication denied.