The bulk update request #1189 has been rejected.

create implication retracted_foreskin (26732) -> foreskin (165347)

Reason: A penis has to a have foreskin if you want to retract it

EDIT: The bulk update request #1189 (forum #314801) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

It sounds like it makes sense but.. none of the other tags implicate uncut and the uncut tag implies foreskin.

Is there any point to the uncut tag vs just using foreskin?

faucet said:
Is there any point to the uncut tag vs just using foreskin?

It looks like uncut should only be used on humanoid penises, looking at the wiki. But, I have seen hybrid penises with a foreskin that could potentially be cut. So, that would make them uncut too, I guess? I'll change it to foreskin.

Might want to update the reason too.

faucet said:
It sounds like it makes sense but.. none of the other tags implicate uncut and the uncut tag implies foreskin.

Is there any point to the uncut tag vs just using foreskin?

Once again we come to the question of "is uncut needed" while we do not tag things like limbs but do tag amputee.

All asides. Im surprised this isnt already done as part of the earlier update. I must have missrd this one.

demesejha said:
Once again we come to the question of "is uncut needed"...

Sure, it is needed. Some people prefer cut penises, some don't. Some people are even disgusted by one of the options. So, yes it is.

Tagging limbs is not necessary because, in a normal case, everyone should have all of them. This is something you could say about uncut penises too, but sadly It's still very common in some parts of the world to be cut.
And it is the same for limbs/amputations as for foreskin, Some people want to see amputations, some don't.

Edit: if the question was: "do we need uncut and foreskin", I'd say no.

dubsthefox said:
Edit: if the question was: "do we need uncut and foreskin", I'd say no.

I am pretty sure that was the question. Personally I'd be happy with aliasing one to the other, or even invalidate both using the armpits tag as precedent. So images with an excessive focus on foreskin could still be tagged as foreskin_fetish or more specific tags such as foreskin_pull, but the lack of a circumcision is no more eligible to be tagged than the absence of other body modifications such as scars or tattoos. Apart from anything else, this would save a lot of time squinting at stylised erections trying to work out if there could theoretically have been foreskin there or not. One of my main objections to uncut as a tag is that it's one of those "What They Do/Don't Teach You In Harvard Business School" tags, in that in theory, every humanoid_penis should have at least one of the two present, but there frequently isn't enough information to decide either way. Either including circumcised in a search or adding it to your blacklist should be sufficient to cater to all preferences.

On a similar note, we have a glans tag which I have never felt the need to use.

• I think it would be better to implicate retracted_foreskin -> uncut, instead of the implication retracted_foreskin -> foreskin. This way it will form the implication chain retracted_foreskin -> uncut -> foreskin (or an implication for both retracted_foreskin -> foreskin/uncut can be utilized if folks feel like that would be better, despite being slightly redundant).
• Since uncut implies foreskin, it might also be a good idea to add these implications of foreskin tags to uncut (and edits can be made, if anything on this list should only be implicated to foreskin, and not to uncut).

The bulk update request #1189 (forum #314801) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

Mentioning foreskins: Why are so many circumcised penises not tagged? Same with glans tag for exposed tip. *anatomy nerd/pedantist*