Topic: tail_lick must not implicate tail_fetish

Posted under General

See also topic #28738, where it was stated that *_play tags indicate sexual foreplay, which is fetishistic in nature. If tail_in_mouth shouldn't implicate tail_play then tail_lick shouldn't either. Though it would be nice to have a tag indicating a character doing (sexual or non-sexual) playful actions with their tail, like licking, biting, and chasing. I would've used tail_play for that, especially if, as it is now, tail_play and tail_fetish are effectively identical.

watsit said:
Though it would be nice to have a tag indicating a character doing (sexual or non-sexual) playful actions with their tail, like licking, biting, and chasing. I would've used tail_play for that, especially if, as it is now, tail_play and tail_fetish are effectively identical.

playing_with_tail

? It shouldn't sound as fetishistic as tail_play.

clawstripe said:
playing_with_tail? It shouldn't sound as fetishistic as tail_play.

I like playing_with_tail as a general tag not implying sexual context. The *_play tags having a consistent meaning is useful.

I think it's safe to replace tail_play in tail_play rating:s with playing_with_tail in such case.

Having both tail_play and playing_with_tail may be confusing though. I think all tail_play in tail_play -rating:s should be replaced with tail_fetish. This problem was also mentioned in the DEIMPLICATE tail_in_mouth -> tail_play topic you linked to.

lordhayati said:
what if its a tail maw, that is also licking someone else? does that count as a tail_lick?

I doubt people searching for tail_lick want tails as the subject and not the object of licking. People looking for tail maws are unlikely to use tail_lick in their search, I think.

It must also be noted that tail_maw tail_lick images don't exist and there aren't that many tail_maw tail_play images (157). Not sure inventing a very specific tag for this is worthwhile. If anyone is a fan of this, they should probably start with adding tail_fetish to relevant tail_maw -tail_fetish rating:e images.

The bulk update request #1021 is active.

remove implication tail_lick (170) -> tail_play (10496)

Reason: tail lick doesn't have to be sexual, as shown in images like
post #2786077 post #1556479
However, tail_play currently implies tail_fetish, which such posts are not.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1021 (forum #312004) has been approved by @slyroon.

Updated by auto moderator

kinkyglutamate said:
Who needs to approve this?

A moderator. There's no specific order they handle these things in, and they'll get around to it when they get time to (there's a bunch of other requests, and other site-related duties, they need to handle too).

kinkyglutamate said:
Who needs to approve this? The request seems to have 8 upvotes to 0 downvotes, so it's, uh, good?

It can have a hundred upvotes and would still need to wait. Upvotes just show how many people agree, they aren't the key to progress.

  • 1