The tag implication #51943 urethral_fisting -> urethral_penetration has been approved.

Reason: Seems kind of like a no-brainer. After filtering urethral penetration, I had to add the tag to two different posts tagged with urethral fisting, so it should probably be an implication. Also urethral_fingering should be implicated too, but I dunno if I have to make a separate request for it.

EDIT: The tag implication urethral_fisting -> urethral_penetration (forum #377406) has been approved by @spe.

Probably a no-brainer, but you should read the urethral_penetration wiki first.
Both urethral_fisting and urethral_fingering are deliberately kept separate from the above tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Probably a no-brainer, but you should read the urethral_penetration wiki first.
Both urethral_fisting and urethral_fingering are deliberately kept separate from the above tag.

The person who made that edit has had issues w tagging. Was there a consensus to keep it separate? Keeping it separate doesn't make sense to me.

Nevermind, it seems the other tags like 'vaginal' use the same format.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Both urethral_fisting and urethral_fingering are deliberately kept separate from the above tag.

Not anymore. Pointless distinction

The tag implication urethral_fisting -> urethral_penetration (forum #377406) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #8843 is pending approval.

remove implication urethral_fisting (170) -> urethral (11973)
create implication vaginal_fisting (701) -> vaginal_penetration (296865)
create implication cloacal_fisting (48) -> cloacal_penetration (2893)
create implication anal_fisting (2182) -> anal_penetration (335293)
remove implication vaginal_fisting (701) -> vaginal (389273)
remove implication cloacal_fisting (48) -> cloacal (3820)
remove implication anal_fisting (2182) -> anal (407436)
create implication slit_fisting (18) -> fisting (4003)
create implication slit_fisting (18) -> slit_penetration (2081)

Reason: Fisting implies penetration

You know, I'd probalbly orient it more so fisting points towards vaginal/anal/urethral/slit_play than further overloading the penetration tag.

fifteen said:
You know, I'd probalbly orient it more so fisting points towards vaginal/anal/urethral/slit_play than further overloading the penetration tag.

My main problem with that is that it means we can’t use the gender_penetrating_gender tags for fisting, and this is mostly why some users have taken to populating male_fisting_female and so on. I think I’d rather do that than have gender_action_gender tags for every sex act. This does still leave out non-penetrative acts, but I don’t really have a good solution for those yet…

spe said:
This does still leave out non-penetrative acts, but I don’t really have a good solution for those yet…

what about, like, servicing? it's not exactly exclusively non-penetrative, but I feel like it would cover most of the other sex acts that tend to get x_<verb>_y tags.

dba_afish said:
what about, like, servicing? it's not exactly exclusively non-penetrative, but I feel like it would cover most of the other sex acts that tend to get x_<verb>_y tags.

That seems like a plausible solution, actually.

Would servicing then act as an umbrella tag for both penetrative and non-penetrative acts?