Topic: [REJECTED] BUR in mouth

The bulk update request #2633 has been rejected.

create implication penis_penetrating_mouth (0) -> penis_in_mouth (40477)
create implication penis_in_mouth (40477) -> oral (345033)
create implication penis_in_mouth (40477) -> penile (749202)
create implication penis_penetrating_mouth (0) -> oral_penetration (116608)
create implication penis_penetrating_mouth (0) -> penile_penetration (397257)
create implication dildo_in_mouth (1247) -> dildo (93050)
create implication dildo_penetrating_mouth (0) -> dildo_in_mouth (1247)
create implication dildo_penetrating_mouth (0) -> oral_penetration (116608)
create implication dildo_penetrating_mouth (0) -> dildo_insertion (29417)
remove implication dildo_in_ass (17800) -> dildo (93050)
remove implication dildo_in_ass (17800) -> anal_penetration (403429)

Reason: mirroring implications of penis_in_ass and dildo_in_ass and sex_toy_in_ass

also removing redundant implications of dildo_in_ass (tags are already implied indirectly)

EDIT: The bulk update request #2633 (forum #337611) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

What if a penis is sideways in a mouth? I wouldn't call that penetration.

topic #32917 :

kyiiel said:
Not even sure if penis_in_mouth should have even been aliased to oral. Pretty sure it's possible for a character to be depicted with a penis in their mouth, without 'stimulating the genitals'.

Ex: the character has eaten a penis, or the character has a penis_tongue, such as post #3021960 and post #3012871

furrin_gok said:
topic #32917 :

I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't tag penis_tongue with penis_in_mouth, it seems like it'd be a misuse of the tag. it's sort of a "technically true but that's really not what the tag was meant for", similar to tagging ferals as nude.

dubsthefox said:
What if a penis is sideways in a mouth? I wouldn't call that penetration.

the wiki page says that it's specifically for penetration similar to penis_in_ass, penis_in_pussy, etc., I think penis_kissing is generally more used for this kind of thing, unless you mean like a full in one side of a muzzle and out the other, in which case, hmm...

dubsthefox said:
What if a penis is sideways in a mouth? I wouldn't call that penetration.

So basically penis_in_mouth is a little ambiguous?

How about calling penetration with penis_penetrating_mouth, tag sideways penis with penis_mouth_hold.

I think that's how this BUR should look like.

create implication penis_penetrating_mouth -> penis_in_mouth
create implication penis_penetrating_mouth -> oral_penetration 
create implication penis_penetrating_mouth -> penile_penetration 
create implication penis_mouth_hold -> mouth_hold
remove implication dildo_in_ass -> dildo 
remove implication dildo_in_ass -> anal_penetration 

Now that I think about it, wouldn't dildo_in_mouth have the same problem?

create implication dildo_in_mouth -> dildo_insertion
create implication sex_toy_in_mouth -> oral_penetration

Edit: After some thinking, this doesn't make any sense

darryus said:
...unless you mean like a full in one side of a muzzle and out the other...

Like this:
post #3157902 post #3256972 post #2673047

dubsthefox said:
What if a penis is sideways in a mouth? I wouldn't call that penetration.

I wouldn't consider sideways_oral to fit the definition of penis_in_mouth in the wiki page. It's better to follow the penis_in_* standard and keep those concepts distinct.

It doesn't fit the definition in the wiki. But The tag seems so obvious, it will be used for sideways_oral and penis_tongue.

I feel like penis_tongue would be pretty clearly a mistag, even if it's something that'd happen somewhat commonly (although penis_tongue isn't really common in the first place), it dosn't seem like it'd really serve any function to include.
but I do feel it'd be useful if sideways_oral, and similar situations were included under the definition of the *_in_mouth tags.

Updated the script to accomodate sideways_oral into the definition. Thoughts?

gattonero2001 said:
Updated the script to accomodate sideways_oral into the definition. Thoughts?

While it doesn't seem like the most elegant solution, I've been thinking about this all day, and can't think of anything better.
Looks like sideways oral edit did not go through.
I would imply sideways_oral -> penis because it's impossible to do it without penis being visible.

darryus said:
...it'd be useful if sideways_oral, and similar situations were included under the definition of the *_in_mouth tags.

Not sure about imply sideways_oral -> penis_in_mouth since there's a number of posts (sideways_oral -oral_penetration penis_lick) with sideways oral but without penis in mouth. Perhaps they could be separated into sideways_penis_lick and sideways_fellatio?

I would do the same to dildo_in_mouth -> dildo_insertion
And I'd remove sex_toy_in_mouth -> oral_penetration
A sex toy doesn't have to be used for penetration. It can be a e.g. a cock_ring or a penetrable_sex_toy

dubsthefox said:
I would do the same to dildo_in_mouth -> dildo_insertion
And I'd remove sex_toy_in_mouth -> oral_penetration
A sex toy doesn't have to be used for penetration. It can be a e.g. a cock_ring or a penetrable_sex_toy

updated again

i guess it makes sense to treat oral related tags differently than vaginal or anal, since the mouth can hold things without being penetrated by them, but i would prefer to keep things as simple as possible

The bulk update request #2633 (forum #337611) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.