Implicating looking_at_penis → penis
Link to implication

Reason:

penis

I'm amazed that this wasn't already penis.

Couldn't the back of the male be shown, though? Then the penis wouldn't be visible.

Furrin_Gok said:
Couldn't the back of the male be shown, though? Then the penis wouldn't be visible.

Maybe, but then how would be know what they were looking at was actually a penis? Could be looking-at-bulge or looking-at-friend-beating-score-on-his-DS or looking-at-phone, etc if what's in his lap isn't visible. If the penis can't be seen, then I don't think we can really tag it as a penis that they're looking at. (Though if there's enough implied, it might get the suggestive tag.) It was a good concern to bring up though.

Unless someone can think of anything else, I'm thinking that this implication would work.

Plus one.
If the penis isn't visible, I don't think it should be tagged with this. Even if a character is peeking into someone's pants.

post #181977

+1
If the penis can't be seen it can't be tagged.

Approved then.