Implicating voyeur → being_watched
Link to implication

Reason:

if one has a voyeur, then one is being watched. Also per the tag's wiki descriptions.

Hmm. But what about the watching tag?
You removed the "...the person committing the act must not realizing they're being watched" bit from the being_watched wiki entry, but that was the only real difference between watching and being_watched. Now the wiki makes them sound identical.

I've always thought that this set of tags is poorly named, but we should keep one tag for instances where someone doesn't realize they're being watched.

!NOTE! Edit, December 2014: This thread is now severely out of date. The whole tag group has been reworked, and being_watched is tagged in different way now. The implication should be deleted.!NOTE!

That doesn't seem right. The Voyeur is the one doing the watching, so if the picture shows just the voyeur, no one in the picture is being watched.

Why do we even have watching/being_watched? watching -voyeurand being_watched -voyeur are 98% what you'd expect to see from the voyeur tag.

DrHorse said:
Why do we even have watching/being_watched? watching -voyeurand being_watched -voyeur are 98% what you'd expect to see from the voyeur tag.

voyeur = Can be either nonconsensual (peeping toms, secret cameras, etc) or consensual (usually paired with exhibitionism). Tagged if a character gets sexual gratification from watching someone masturbate or have sex.
watching = Watching it, without getting turned on by it. For example, shocked crowd staring at public sex is tagged as watching.
being_watched = Like above, except the person being watched doesn't realize that they're being watched. Or at least that's how it was defined before the latest wiki change.

Some examples:

voyeur:
post #334896 post #39768 post #211

watching:
post #435033 post #207664 post #422269

being_watched:
post #363874 post #356808 post #351640

In theory, it's an useful set of tags...but the names are terribly unintuitive and they get constantly mistagged. Not to mention that it's often hard to tell if someone realizes that they're being watched. I'm not sure how these could be fixed, but I'm against the implication.

Genjar said:
I'm not sure how these could be fixed, but I'm against the implication.

Then what implication would you not be against? We need a place to put the watchers whose level of arousal is ambiguous.

DrHorse said:
We need a place to put the watchers whose level of arousal is ambiguous.

Hmm. If it's not obvious that they're aroused, it probably shouldn't be tagged as voyeurism.

Since that tag group is such a mess, I think we need to overhaul the whole thing. How about this: combine being_watched and watching into one, since it's often impossible to tell the difference?

That'd leave us with two main tags. Voyeur for actual voyeurism (the character is turned on by watching an another), and watching for non-aroused and ambiguous watchers. As for watching someone from hiding... that could be tagged as peeping.

Edit: It's been a few months, and I'm still against this implication. Being_watched isn't needed, it should be aliased with watching.

Genjar said:
Voyeur for actual voyeurism, watching for non-aroused and ambiguous watchers.

What about the watchers who are aroused but not participating in actual voyeurism?

DrHorse said:
What about the watchers who are aroused but not participating in actual voyeurism?

If they're aroused and watching, they're voyeurs because we don't tag intent.

Genjar said:
!NOTE! Edit, December 2014: This thread is now severely out of date. The whole tag group has been reworked, and being_watched is tagged in different way now. The implication should be deleted.!NOTE!

Thanks for adding that in, Genjar. A lot has changed since this thread was originally started, and I'd have to agree these two tags have been differentiated since this thread was created and discussed. It no longer makes sense to implicate them. So implication is deleted.