Implicating sleep_sex → sex
Link to implication

Reason:

One of examples in sex wiki.

Hmmm, is there a nuance I'm missing or should somnophilia and sleep_sex be aliased to each other? At first blush, they seem like the same thing.

The implication makes sense to me, by the way. I just wanted to discuss this related tag while we're at it.

furrypickle said:
Hmmm, is there a nuance I'm missing or should somnophilia and sleep_sex be aliased to each other? At first blush, they seem like the same thing.

I don't know anything about the subject, but I couldn't help but notice that the wikipedia article for somnophilia has "See also: Sleep Sex"...which I can't say I expected. From these I've gathered:

• Sleep Sex: Having sex with someone while asleep (think more like sleepwalking or hypnosis).
• Somnophilia: Urge to have sex with people who are sleeping.

So definitionally it depends on who's the person initiating the sex. For tagging...there really isn't an obvious distinction with the words themselves and I could see them easily getting mixed up with each other. I say we pick one as a blanket term and stick with that.

As for which one...well...personally I'm not a fan of using *philia tags because they tend to have a lot of clinical (DSM-IV/ICD-9) baggage that influence the terms. In reality though, it probably doesn't matter which is used.

parasprite said:
I don't know anything about the subject, but I couldn't help but notice that the wikipedia article for somnophilia has "See also: Sleep Sex"...which I can't say I expected. From these I've gathered:

• Sleep Sex: Having sex with someone while asleep (think more like sleepwalking or hypnosis).
• Somnophilia: Urge to have sex with people who are sleeping.

So definitionally it depends on who's the person initiating the sex. For tagging...there really isn't an obvious distinction with the words themselves and I could see them easily getting mixed up with each other. I say we pick one as a blanket term and stick with that.

As for which one...well...personally I'm not a fan of using *philia tags because they tend to have a lot of clinical (DSM-IV/ICD-9) baggage that influence the terms. In reality though, it probably doesn't matter which is used.

Interesting. I happen to be more familiar with somnophilia than sleep_sex, so this is good to know. I agree that for tagging purposes, we probably only need one. The act is going to look the same most of the time, and if someone is clearly sleepwalking then that tag can be used in addition to sleep_sex I think.

As for which term to use, we generally have steered away from using the *philia terms, although for different more tag-centric reasons: the *philia terms tend to be less-known/obscure, a little more challenging to spell, etc. And all of that means the're just less accessible and less functional to people coming from mixed backgrounds and second-language-speakers. So as long as sleep_sex seems clear enough to most people, we'd probably lean in that direction anyways. Though I understand the clinical baggage you're talking about and think it's also a good factor to keep in mind.

Plus one for both the implication and the alias.
I'd go with sleep_sex as the main tag, for the reason parasprite mentioned and because it is less obscure. My spellchecker doesn't even recognize somnophilia as a real word..

Does somnophilia include pictures like these: post #528807 post #281317?
If so, you'd have to either do sleep_sex → somnophilia or remove the tag from those pics (which isn't a big deal because such pictures are rare and there's still sleep -solo rating:e)

Deh-tiger said:
Does somnophilia include pictures like these: post #528807 post #281317?
If so, you'd have to either do sleep_sex → somnophilia or remove the tag from those pics (which isn't a big deal because such pictures are rare and there's still sleep -solo rating:e)

For the sake of simplicity I'm inclined to just remove the tags. There isn't a whole lot of sense in using a tag with 100 results that implicates to an extremely similar tag with 102 results since one tag will probably fall out of use anyways.

Another option might be to leave the implication off of sleep_sex and alias somnophilia, since we know pictures like this will end up getting tagged with it anyways; which would be better than having it get mixed in with sex. But then again...I'm not sure how common these borderline cases are.

Deh-tiger said:
post #281317

http://i.imgur.com/mK6QLO7.jpg

parasprite said:
For the sake of simplicity I'm inclined to just remove the tags. There isn't a whole lot of sense in using a tag with 100 results that implicates to an extremely similar tag with 102 results since one tag will probably fall out of use anyways.

Another option might be to leave the implication off of sleep_sex and alias somnophilia, since we know pictures like this will end up getting tagged with it anyways; which would be better than having it get mixed in with sex. But then again...I'm not sure how common these borderline cases are.

http://i.imgur.com/mK6QLO7.jpg

That's what I was thinking. The only clearly exceptional pictures I could find were those two.

http://i.imgur.com/mK6QLO7.jpg[/quote]
Lol

Alright, so I looked through both tags and only found maybe 4 images out of a hundred that wouldn't fit the sex tag being implicated to them. But they also weren't actually sleep_sex either so they were better off tagged out to better tags anyways. One was groping someone when they were sleeping, three were imminent_sex + sleeping, one was molestation of a sleeping person, etc.

So I tagged those few mistagged images out and I think it will work.

So approved:

implicated sleep_sex to --> sex
aliased somnophilia to --> sleep_sex