The bulk update request #848 has been rejected.

remove implication penis_in_penis (1923) -> penis (1550091)

Reason: The other penis_in_* tags don't implicate penis, and the penis_in_pussy -> penis implication was just rejected, so it makes sense to not have this implicated either.

However, I'm not 100% sure what to do about penis_in_face. Unlike the others, it's not about penetration where the penis can be fully inside an orifice and not seen, but about a penis being in front of someone's face. I'm not sure if something like that can be well enough inferred without actually seeing the penis, so feel free to discuss if it should be part of the BUR.

EDIT: The bulk update request #848 (forum #308655) has been rejected by @Millcore.

For the penis to be in an object, you have to see that object. You'll see the penis that's outside the other penis. That should remain.

furrin_gok said:
For the penis to be in an object, you have to see that object.

Although if you can infer a post is male_penetrating_male, and one male is penetrating in the crotch area (i.e. not the mouth or anus), couldn't it still be inferred? If vaginal_penetration can be inferred without seeing the vagina, as can happen with a female character being penetrated in the crotch area while their anus is clearly not penetrated, couldn't penile_penetration penetration of the penis (that really needs to be fixed) be inferred without seeing the penis?

watsit said:
Although if you can infer a post is male_penetrating_male, and one male is penetrating in the crotch area (i.e. not the mouth or anus), couldn't it still be inferred? If vaginal_penetration can be inferred without seeing the vagina, as can happen with a female character being penetrated in the crotch area while their anus is clearly not penetrated, couldn't penile_penetration penetration of the penis (that really needs to be fixed) be inferred without seeing the penis?

Without seeing at least one penis, how would you tell if one is within the other or if they are actually side-by-side, such as with frottage?

clawstripe said:
Without seeing at least one penis, how would you tell if one is within the other or if they are actually side-by-side, such as with frottage?

Fair point.

clawstripe said:
Without seeing at least one penis, how would you tell if one is within the other or if they are actually side-by-side, such as with frottage?

I don't think that's a problem. Here's what I've written in the discussion for whether penis_in_pussy should imply penis ( https://e621.net/forum_topics/29385 ):

monroethelizard said:
I can imagine a scenario in which the tag penis_in_penis could reasonably be assumed to apply even in the absence of visible penises. Perhaps the crotches of two characters are not visible, but one of them is saying something like, "Oh, your cock feels so good inside mine," and the body positions clearly imply that urethral penetration is occurring.

In this hypothetical image, no penises are visible. So the tag penis could not be applied, whereas the tag penis_in_penis could be applied.

That being said, I think it's absurd to have an image tagged penis_in_penis but not tagged penis. A better solution than de-implicating penis from all "penis_in_x" tags would be to implicate penis in each of those tags. 😜

monroethelizard said:
Perhaps the crotches of two characters are not visible, but one of them is saying something like, "Oh, your cock feels so good inside mine," and the body positions clearly imply that urethral penetration is occurring.

Dialog counts as external information. "Your cock feels so good inside mine" couldn't make penis_in_penis valid any more than "Your cock feels so good inside my pussy" could make andromorph/penis_in_pussy valid for otherwise masculine-looking characters you can't see the genitals of.

The bulk update request #848 (forum #308655) has been rejected by @Millcore.