The bulk update request #1726 is pending approval.

create implication slit_play (2800) -> genital_slit (32190) # duplicate of implication #10240
create implication penis_penetrating_slit (0) -> slit_sex (0)
create implication penis_penetrating_slit (0) -> slit_penetration (2081)
create implication slit_sex (0) -> sex (996486)
create implication slit_penetration (2081) -> slit_play (2800) # duplicate of implication #11941
create implication slit_fingering (339) -> slit_penetration (2081)
create implication slit_licking (104) -> slit_play (2800)
create implication slit_sex (0) -> slit_play (2800)
create implication slit_penetration (2081) -> penetration (820782) # duplicate of implication #11942
create alias slit_(wound) (97) -> cut_(wound) (70)
create alias slit_licking (104) -> slit_lick (3)
create implication slit_lick (3) -> licking (141402)
create implication oral_slit_play (57) -> oral (287637)
create implication oral_slit_play (57) -> slit_play (2800)

Reason: * Slit is short for Genital Slit

• Slit Play describes lewd acts involving the Genital Slit
• Slit Play require a Genital Slit
• If a Penis uses another person's slit like a Vagina than they are basically having Sex with it
• If humping a character's genital slit is considered a form of Sex, then it should be implied as such
• Lewd acts that would not necessarily be considered sex with a Genital Slit include Fingering and Licking a Slit
• All the aforementioned would still fall under Slit Play
• Slit Penetration should be considered a form of Penetration.

foolysh said:
create implication penis_penetrating_slit -> slit_sex
create implication penis_penetrating_slit -> slit_penetration

There are tags like penis_in_ass, penis_in_pussy, and penis_in_mouth for the various orifices. Might be better to alias penis_penetrating_slit to penis_in_slit, and have that implicate slit_penetration. Also, I don't think the implication to slit_sex would be good, in cases of autopenetration (which is masturbation and not sex).

Otherwise, it seems to be fine to me.

Is there a compelling reason not to alias genital_slit to slit already? I know the latter is technically somewhat ambiguous, but it's such a commonly used term outside of this site I don't think we're putting that genie back in the bottle, and there doesn't appear to be any significant amount of confusion in practice. (The wiki suggests slit_(wound), which has all of 39 posts and would probably be better aliased to cut_(wound) anyway.)

create implication slit_licking -> slit_play

Technically, slit_licking should probably be called slit_lick to be consistent with other *_lick tags, such as penis_lick.

create implication slit_fingering -> slit_penetration

The slit_penetration wiki specifically says fingering doesn't count.

wat8548 said:
Is there a compelling reason not to alias genital_slit to slit already? I know the latter is technically somewhat ambiguous, but it's such a commonly used term outside of this site I don't think we're putting that genie back in the bottle, and there doesn't appear to be any significant amount of confusion in practice. (The wiki suggests slit_(wound), which has all of 39 posts and would probably be better aliased to cut_(wound) anyway.)

genital_slit is more specific, so it should be slit -> genital_slit, I think. I thought this alias was done recently, but I guess I was mistaken. I agree they should be aliased together.

wat8548 said:
Is there a compelling reason not to alias genital_slit to slit already?

Now that ambiguous_slit exists, there's not much point to keeping those two separate. It used to do the job for ambiguous_gender cases where you couldn't tell if it is a genital slit or not.
But yes, the alias should be slit -> genital_slit, not the other way around.

genjar said:
Now that ambiguous_slit exists, there's not much point to keeping those two separate. It used to do the job for ambiguous_gender cases where you couldn't tell if it is a genital slit or not.

It exists, but it doesn't seem to be used all that much. genital_slit ambiguous_gender has 11 pages, while ambiguous_slit has less than one (and even there, many posts with ambiguous_slit are tagged male or female). Genital slit also seems to be getting used for pussies and cloacas.

watsit said:
It exists, but it doesn't seem to be used all that much. genital_slit ambiguous_gender has 11 pages, while ambiguous_slit has less than one (and even there, many posts with ambiguous_slit are tagged male or female). Genital slit also seems to be getting used for pussies and cloacas.

This raises the question: if genital_slit is only supposed to be used for slits with a penis inside, and ambiguous_slit is supposed to be used when it "doesn't give any hint as to whether the character is male or female" (wiki), what's the correct tag for a slit when you're not sure if it's a cloaca or not?

Unless we're going to insist that the penis must be visible to some extent when tagging genital_slit - good luck policing that one - I'm not convinced there's a TWYS-compliant way to define that distinction.

wat8548 said:
This raises the question: if genital_slit is only supposed to be used for slits with a penis inside, and ambiguous_slit is supposed to be used when it "doesn't give any hint as to whether the character is male or female" (wiki), what's the correct tag for a slit when you're not sure if it's a cloaca or not?

Unless we're going to insist that the penis must be visible to some extent when tagging genital_slit - good luck policing that one - I'm not convinced there's a TWYS-compliant way to define that distinction.

Well, cloaca should be obvious since a cloaca is supposed to be all of your lower orifices rolled into one. If the character has one hole and it is not distinctly or exclusively an anus/vagina/slit, then its probably a cloaca. So you could (if you squint really hard) argue that if you can see a hole but you are not sure if its a cloaca because you cannot see an anus-less taint then its an ambiguous slit.

watsit said:
There are tags like penis_in_ass, penis_in_pussy, and penis_in_mouth for the various orifices. Might be better to alias penis_penetrating_slit to penis_in_slit, and have that implicate slit_penetration. Also, I don't think the implication to slit_sex would be good, in cases of autopenetration (which is masturbation and not sex).

Otherwise, it seems to be fine to me.

See I looked at that while I was doing this. I was lead to believe that penis_in_slit was supposed to be if a penis was in a slit. Like if you can see the tip of the penis while its flaccid in still inside its owner's slit. But if you say so...

foolysh said:
I was lead to believe that penis_in_slit was supposed to be if a penis was in a slit. Like if you can see the tip of the penis while its flaccid in still inside its owner's slit.

That's a good point, actually. In such a case, maybe penis_in_slit should be disambiguated to suggest either penis_penetrating_slit or flaccid+genital_slit (or internal with the penis visible in the slit).

Bump because I was about to accidentally recreate part of this BUR

I don't think penis_in_slit is ambiguous, it follows the standard naming pattern. Since we have intravaginal_penis, how about intraslit_penis or something similar for the alternative interpretation?

gattonero2001 said:
Bump because I was about to accidentally recreate part of this BUR

I don't think penis_in_slit is ambiguous, it follows the standard naming pattern. Since we have intravaginal_penis, how about intraslit_penis or something similar for the alternative interpretation?

Perhaps internal penis? It’s already been used at least once for a slit. I’m not sure how the other one is using it.

Whatever tag we use, I think it should also apply to cloacas and not just slits.

foolysh said:

• Slit is short for Genital Slit
• Slit Play describes lewd acts involving the Genital Slit
• Slit Play require a Genital Slit
• If a Penis uses another person's slit like a Vagina than they are basically having Sex with it
• If humping a character's genital slit is considered a form of Sex, then it should be implied as such
• Lewd acts that would not necessarily be considered sex with a Genital Slit include Fingering and Licking a Slit
• All the aforementioned would still fall under Slit Play
• Slit Penetration should be considered a form of Penetration.

Or I am just an idiot

That's all pretty sound stuff! You get an upvote from me!

There's also oral_slit_play that you may want to fit in there as either an alias or an implication.

gattonero2001 said:
Bump because I was about to accidentally recreate part of this BUR

I don't think penis_in_slit is ambiguous, it follows the standard naming pattern. Since we have intravaginal_penis, how about intraslit_penis or something similar for the alternative interpretation?

Well, guess I have a new tag to remember. Didn't know there were a tag for intravaginal_penis, ie a herm that has their penis housed inside their own vagina.

Though, in regards to "ambiguous slits" couldn't that just be "slit"? Since that alone doesn't imply anything more than it being a slit, what it is hiding inside is unknown. If it is a cloaca or not is also potentially unknown. Though, I guess if one wants a tag for searching for specifically slits that it is hard to know what they are for, then maybe ambiguous slit is a useful tag.

watsit said:
There are tags like penis_in_ass, penis_in_pussy, and penis_in_mouth for the various orifices. Might be better to alias penis_penetrating_slit to penis_in_slit, and have that implicate slit_penetration. Also, I don't think the implication to slit_sex would be good, in cases of autopenetration (which is masturbation and not sex).

Otherwise, it seems to be fine to me.

I think this would be an improvement to make all "penis_penetrating_[insert hole here]" tags just "penis_in_[insert hole here]". Mainly since it saves in a bit on typing and is still clear in its meaning. (same for other appendages in holes, like tails, fingers/hands, arms, tentacles, etc. This is thankfully more or less already the case.)

For a penis housed in a slit that isn't yet fully erect or just faintly visible, then maybe flaccid is a useful term?

nystemy said:
For a penis housed in a slit that isn't yet fully erect or just faintly visible, then maybe flaccid is a useful term?

Definitely not, that tag already has enough problems with people tagging it when they should have been using fully_sheathed.

wat8548 said:
Definitely not, that tag already has enough problems with people tagging it when they should have been using fully_sheathed.

That I won't disagree with. But that is more or less only applicable to sheaths, hard to make a similar tag for a slit since a fully concealed penis inside a slit by e621's tagging rules could just as well be a vagina, but if neither is clear then it is just a slit.

Though, the thing I were thinking of would be tagged as just penis alongside the tag for slit when I think of it more. Since the two tags refer to different things. Similar to how a character with a sheath has one tag for the penis if visible, and a second tag for the sheath itself.

However, e621 doesn't really group tags based on character, so if there is 2 or more characters in an image, it can lead to false positives in the search if someone is looking for a character with a slit and a penis. But this shouldn't be an issue as long as genital_slit remains defined as the male end of things. Ie, a vagina isn't a genital slit by that definition, and for ease of searching this is desired.

scaliespe said:
Perhaps internal penis? It’s already been used at least once for a slit. I’m not sure how the other one is using it.

Whatever tag we use, I think it should also apply to cloacas and not just slits.

Updated.