Implicating Presenting → Pose
Link to implication

Reason:

Presenting is posing in a very, very sexual way.

This is going to be a pretty big implication. Is there anyone that objects to this?

Char said:
This is going to be a pretty big implication. Is there anyone that objects to this?

I'm not sure I'm on board with it. Yes presenting is technically involving posing, but then so is kneeling. I don't think pose is for every position someone can be in. I think of pose as in model poses/photoshoot poses/pinups and that sort of thing. But maybe that's just me.

To me they just have a different purpose. If we implicate these, then it's going to turn pose into a very big umbrella tag for all held positions (the broadest sense of the word "pose") and I'm not sure that will be as useful as if we kept pose for just the modeling poses/pinup type of stuff. /just my two cents

What furrypickle said makes sense to me.

Suineder said:
What furrypickle said makes sense to me.

Second.

furrypickle said:
I'm not sure I'm on board with it. Yes presenting is technically involving posing, but then so is kneeling. I don't think pose is for every position someone can be in. I think of pose as in model poses/photoshoot poses/pinups and that sort of thing.

I concur.
Vast majority of presenting does fall under pose (especially solo presenting), but I don't think we should tag all of it as posing. That would make the pose tag too broad to be useful.

Implication denied for the reasons mentioned. The pose tag is better kept for things like model poses/photoshoot poses/pinups since implicating every type of pose or position to it would make the tag too broad and far less useful for searches.