The bulk update request #1456 is pending approval.

remove implication mutual_handjob (792) -> mutual_masturbation (2198)
remove implication mutual_footjob (110) -> mutual_masturbation (2198)
change category mutual_masturbation (2198) -> invalid

Reason: Despite its name, mutual masturbation is not masturbation. It typically refers to two or more characters giving a handjob and/or fingering each other rather than themselves. There are the mutual_handjob and mutual_footjob tags, but for some reason they imply mutual_masturbation, with mutual_masturbation left as its own tag. This has caused mutual_masturbation to be used for both non-masturbation sex (two or more characters pleasuring each other) and non-sex masturbation (two or more characters pleasuring themselves separately).

This has been brought up years ago with topic #19826 and topic #19868. Aside from a couple dissents, the general consensus seems to be that mutual_masturbation is a poorly worded tag for a non-masturbation act. The only open question seems to be what to call an umbrella tag for mutual handjob/footjob/fingering/etc (or when its a mix, e.g. one character giving a handjob to another, and the other giving a footjob to the first), but either way, mutual_masturbation isn't it and is causing mistags because of its name. "True" mutual masturbation goes under the group masturbation tag.

-100 simply for suggesting invalidating a tag without having a replacement tag for the valid usages to be moved to. All this will result in is people removing the tag from the posts it's used on, and is genuinely applicable to, and just generally causing a mess to fix whenever a new tag is made and it has to be applied to all of them again.

As for the question:
Mutual masturbation, while not masturbation, isn't just some weird tag that was made up on e621 and any mistagging is at the fault of the user not the name of the tag. Since this is pretty much the official name for this sort of thing any other name for the tag would probably just be a made up thing still nobody would understand, unless you gave it a name like non-penetrative_sex_act_where_two_or_more_characters_stimulate_each_other_but_don't_masturbate

faucet said:
-100 simply for suggesting invalidating a tag without having a replacement tag for the valid usages to be moved to.

A number of them have been suggested in the previous thread. mutual_sex, mutual_stimulation, manual_intercourse, mutual_rubbing, etc. I'm open to adding appropriate implications when a replacement is agreed to. Either way, mutual_masturbation is being used on posts it shouldn't, and the existing implications are increasing the amount of cleanup needed for when it's finally dealt with.

faucet said:
As for the question:
Mutual masturbation, while not masturbation, isn't just some weird tag that was made up on e621 and any mistagging is at the fault of the user not the name of the tag.

It's a term outside of e621, yes, but that doesn't stop it from being used incorrectly on e621 even despite a wiki saying it's not masturbation. It's a mistagging that has been occurring for years, and won't stop as long as it includes the term masturbation.

watsit said:
A number of them have been suggested in the previous thread. mutual_sex, mutual_stimulation, manual_intercourse, mutual_rubbing, etc. I'm open to adding appropriate implications when a replacement is agreed to. Either way, mutual_masturbation is being used on posts it shouldn't, and the existing implications are increasing the amount of cleanup needed for when it's finally dealt with.

It's a term outside of e621, yes, but that doesn't stop it from being used incorrectly on e621 even despite a wiki saying it's not masturbation. It's a mistagging that has been occurring for years, and won't stop as long as it includes the term masturbation.

Then I guess this is a case of keeping the implications and aliasing mutual_masturbation to mutual_stimulation to keep it generic.

Unless implications can't be kept to a aliased tag, then they should be updated.

I think this would be the least "destructive" alternative.

omegaumbra said:
Then I guess this is a case of keeping the implications and aliasing mutual_masturbation to mutual_stimulation to keep it generic.

Unless implications can't be kept to a aliased tag, then they should be updated.

They can't. You can't alias a tag that has implications associated with it (or has other aliases targeting it). Plus, that would mean people trying to use mutual_masturbation incorrectly (i.e. for masturbation, not sex), it would improperly tag mutual_stimulation or whatever on the post instead.

watsit said:
They can't. You can't alias a tag that has implications associated with it (or has other aliases targeting it). Plus, that would mean people trying to use mutual_masturbation incorrectly (i.e. for masturbation, not sex), it would improperly tag mutual_stimulation or whatever on the post instead.

Oh, I wrongly presumed that masturbation counted as stimulation.

I think mutual_masturbation should be aliased to an umbrella tag that could mean anything done mutually between partners like you suggested. That way the useful label mutual_masturbation wouldn't be lost. Because even though the name is misleading, it looks like it is correctly tagged by the users, and doesn't have group_masturbation mixed in (unless someone cleaned the tag).

Is there some tag that could mean both masturbation or sex? Because then we could do this:

remove implication mutual_handjob -> mutual_masturbation
remove implication mutual_footjob -> mutual_masturbation
create alias mutual_masturbation -> new_tag
create implication mutual_handjob -> new_tag
create implication mutual_footjob -> new_tag

This could also be added to the BUR.

create alias toying_each_other -> mutual_toying
create implication mutual_toying -> new_tag

The only downside about this is that it would work like a disambiguation, requiring someone to go periodically in this tag to put more specific tags in the posts... But it tagging it wouldn't be incorrect anymore, and the label wouldn't be misleading anymore either.

omegaumbra said:
Is there some tag that could mean both masturbation or sex?

Not that I'm aware of. But even if there was, it'd still be beneficial to have tags to distinguish between mutual masturbation and sex.

I'm just know reading the topics and a lot of what I said was already proposed with its own problems...

Aliasing it to mutual would be too generic. It could be mutual_rubbing as an umbrella term to both mutual handjob and foot job... But it could mislead someone into using it with a penetrable_sex_toy, when it should be mutual_toying.

This looks like a cursed problem where any name chosen for this have their problems.

Looks like the best we could do it make a disambiguation listing mutual sex acts and group masturbation and let the user choose exactly what they meant.

I'm not sure I see the justification for having an umbrella tag at all, because it's not at all clear where the edge of the umbrella reaches.

All we have to go on are that mutual_handjob and mutual_footjob are different forms of the same sex act currently known as mutual_masturbation, defined in the wiki as "where participants manually stimulate each other".

So what are the distinguishing features of this act? It can't be use of the hands. Is it a lack of penetration? If so, is mutual_fingering out? Is frottage in? How deep do two female characters' fingers have to slip before they are Officially No Longer Masturbating? Is it the lack of genital-to-genital contact? Does mutual_fellatio have a unique exemption? Where do dildos fit into this? Presumably the characters are required to be doing the same thing to each other, so does mutual_penetration count? Even when a double_dildo is used?

wat8548 said:
I'm not sure I see the justification for having an umbrella tag at all, because it's not at all clear where the edge of the umbrella reaches.

All we have to go on are that mutual_handjob and mutual_footjob are different forms of the same sex act currently known as mutual_masturbation, defined in the wiki as "where participants manually stimulate each other".

So what are the distinguishing features of this act? It can't be use of the hands. Is it a lack of penetration? If so, is mutual_fingering out? Is frottage in? How deep do two female characters' fingers have to slip before they are Officially No Longer Masturbating? Is it the lack of genital-to-genital contact? Does mutual_fellatio have a unique exemption? Where do dildos fit into this? Presumably the characters are required to be doing the same thing to each other, so does mutual_penetration count? Even when a double_dildo is used?

There's no rule that both characters have to be doing the same thing. There are male/female pictures tagged mutual_masturbation where the female gives the male a handjob and the male fingers the female. So, at the very least, mutual_masturbation is when both characters are stimulating each other's genitals with their hands or feet. It gets a bit hazy though when you consider that many characters have other prehensile things that serve the same purpose as hands. Does a wingjob count? What about a vinejob? A ribbonjob? In my opinion, I'd say those are probably fine to count.

Some notable gray areas I can think of:

• magicjobs are "prehensile" like hands, but also not really a body part...
• tonguejobs involve a prehensile body part (tongue), but it's basically a blowjob
• Anything involving sextoys. Does it count towards mutual_masturbation if the toy is operated via hands/feet/etc.? (Example: two males using penetrable_sex_toys on each other)

Can we just call it manual_sex?

crocogator said:
Does a wingjob count? What about a vinejob? A ribbonjob? In my opinion, I'd say those are probably fine to count.

tailjob was the other one I was thinking of, although I can't believe I forgot about ribbonjob. That used to be one of my favourite tags.

crocogator said:

• Anything involving sextoys. Does it count towards mutual_masturbation if the toy is operated via hands/feet/etc.? (Example: two males using penetrable_sex_toys on each other)

anal_masturbation is a popular tag, so surely it's possible for it to be mutual? Maybe the definition is "a character doing to another what they would otherwise have been capable of doing to themselves", which still leaves the question of what snappier name to call it.

scaliespe said:
Can we just call it manual_sex?

That implies the existence of fully automated luxury sex...