Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: chastity_cage -> phallic_chastity_device

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

CrocoGator

Member

I saw recently that a user created (and added to hundreds of posts) the phallic_chastity_device tag for "chastity device worn on a penis" and yonic_chastity_device for "chastity device worn on a pussy". Or at least, that's my understanding of these new tags. The thing is, a chastity cage might not be worn at all. It might just be in the background, for example.

Then again, per wiki definition, only the intent of the device matters, so this implication should be fine, but in practice, I think the user has actually been tagging based on how the device is being worn rather than the device's intended use. If so, the wikis could use some clarification.

Updated

regsmutt

Member

crocogator said:
I saw recently that a user created (and added to hundreds of posts) the phallic_chastity_device tag for "chastity device worn on a penis" and yonic_chastity_device for "chastity device worn on a pussy". Or at least, that's my understanding of these new tags. The thing is, a chastity cage might not be worn at all. It might just be in the background, for example.

Then again, per wiki definition, only the intent of the device matters, so this implication should be fine, but in practice, I think the user has actually been tagging based on how the device is being worn rather than the device's intended use. If so, the wikis could use some clarification.

As far as I can tell neither tag requires the device to be worn/in use. Chastity_cage is just specific while phallic_chastity_device is broad.

CrocoGator

Member

regsmutt said:
As far as I can tell neither tag requires the device to be worn/in use. Chastity_cage is just specific while phallic_chastity_device is broad.

You're likely right, so I'll remove my vote for now. I was confused because chastity_belts like these were tagged as phallic_chastity_device:
post #3813114 post #4243183 post #3677214
...so I came to the conclusion it was because they covered a penis, but it seems the logic is that they have a bit of room for a penis. This is reinforced by this post being tagged phallic_chastity_device despite not being worn by a character with a penis:
post #4351294
The lack of posts tagged with phallic_chastity_device without the character wearing it is probably because it's rare and/or the user hasn't gotten around to tagging them. Sorry for spreading false news.

regsmutt

Member

crocogator said:
You're likely right, so I'll remove my vote for now. I was confused because chastity_belts like these were tagged as phallic_chastity_device:
post #3813114 post #4243183 post #3677214
...so I came to the conclusion it was because they covered a penis, but it seems the logic is that they have a bit of room for a penis. This is reinforced by this post being tagged phallic_chastity_device despite not being worn by a character with a penis:
post #4351294
The lack of posts tagged with phallic_chastity_device without the character wearing it is probably because it's rare and/or the user hasn't gotten around to tagging them. Sorry for spreading false news.

I think it's also hard to have certain devices like piercings or locks taggable under twys. Belts can probably go either way depending on the structure.

pleaseletmein

Member

Also it should really be called something like penile_chastity_device instead. phallic_chastity_device makes it sound like the chastity device itself resembles a penis (which it sometimes does, but far from always).

regsmutt

Member

pleaseletmein said:
Also it should really be called something like penile_chastity_device instead. phallic_chastity_device makes it sound like the chastity device itself resembles a penis (which it sometimes does, but far from always).

Yeah, I agree, that was my first thought encountering the tag but I didn't know what to replace it with.

Arrow189

Member

There is no reason you couldn't put a cage around a pussy or make one not shaped like a dick. So aliasing ALL chastity_cage to "phallic" would be incorrect sometimes, whether you use "phallic" to mean "penis-shaped" or "for a penis"

regsmutt

Member

arrow189 said:
There is no reason you couldn't put a cage around a pussy or make one not shaped like a dick. So aliasing ALL chastity_cage to "phallic" would be incorrect sometimes, whether you use "phallic" to mean "penis-shaped" or "for a penis"

The chastity_cage wiki specifies it's for a penis. clitoris_chastity_cage has ten posts. Looking through chastity_cage I was able to find one image of a clitoris chastity cage untagged. It also does not currently imply chastity_cage because it is so rare. You also wouldn't be able to split chastity-cages-for-penises out of the larger chastity_cage tag because penis_cage is aliased to it.

Thk54

Member

Hello, the person doing all that tagging here.
The Yonic/Phallic part is because I didn't want didn't want some things getting excluded for stupid reasons like 'he doesn't have a penis he has a klagle. Very different.' and Phallic/Yonic seemed most succinct way to indicate a pole based sexual appendage vs hole based sexual cavity.
Chasity Cage seems to have settled solidly onto 'requires penis' while its closest counterpart Chastity Belt seems to just nebulously be 'pelvically mounted device'. Gets frustrating when I am indifferent to sausages, but don't want something dick based being the reason something shows up in a search, and simultaneously don't want to exclude things because a dick is present.
All this to say Phallic Chastity Device mostly exists because I have to look through it all anyway and might as well do it while I am there.
Though if I am understanding the implication right, it should make sense. I am unsure what dick mounted chastity device would not seem to be intended to restrict access-to/the-function-of the penis it is mounted to.

Edit: Looking at chastity device and how Male_chastity and Female_chastity are aliased to it, I may be re-treading old ground, hope not though. Rather pointedly tried to avoid intrinsically gendering them.

Updated

w1479

Member

Not all chastity cages are "phallic" looking. Just look at the tag sheath_cage, in-sheath_cage. These types of cages are worn on a sheath or in a sheath, so it's definitely not covering a penis directly and is certainly not penis shaped.

It's a direct contradiction to animal genitalia-specific cages.

Rupikonna

Member

dba_afish said:
that's not what phallic means here. phallic can mean just of/related to the phallus, not just penis-shaped.

Technically true, but it's still very misleading. Phallic is colloquially used pretty much exclusively to describe something being penis shaped, and very few use the term in any other ways. Which is why the penile_chastity_device suggested earlier would be better option. It does not have the same kind of ambiguity.

w1479

Member

maryland_p_sevenson said:
that's not what phallic means here. phallic can mean just of/related to the phallus, not just penis-shaped.

It's "tag what you see" rule, not "tag what you interpret". If you want to interpret it that way, we already have a general chastity_cage tag that does the job perfectly already, since I don't see how a chastity cage can be worn and locked over a vagina anyway. And if it's a male chastity belt, with a penis shape at the front, you just use both tags: chastity_belt and chastity_cage.

If it's a more specific version of the chastity_cage tag, then it needs to look visibly the same, like a specific model (aka penile-shaped) for it to have a real practical use to keep the tag.

dba afish

Member

w1479 said:
It's "tag what you see" rule, not "tag what you interpret". If you want to interpret it that way, we already have a general chastity_cage tag that does the job perfectly already, since I don't see how a chastity cage can be worn and locked over a vagina anyway. And if it's a male chastity belt, with a penis shape at the front, you just use both tags: chastity_belt and chastity_cage.

If it's a more specific version of the chastity_cage tag, then it needs to look visibly the same, like a specific model (aka penile-shaped) for it to have a real practical use to keep the tag.

what do you think Tag What You See means?...

also, what are you even talking about? are you arguing against the existence of phallic_chastity_device because you'd classify all of them as "cages"? because there's _definitely_ other ways to enforce chastity. are you arguing that all chastity cages are for the penis? because you voted against the implication that says that exact thing.

w1479

Member

maryland_p_sevenson said:
what do you think Tag What You See means?...

also, what are you even talking about? are you arguing against the existence of phallic_chastity_device because you'd classify all of them as "cages"? because there's _definitely_ other ways to enforce chastity. are you arguing that all chastity cages are for the penis? because you voted against the implication that says that exact thing.

A chastity cage or chastity device can easily be tagged when you see it exposed. But saying "this particular chastity device is a phallic_chastity_device because it's locked over a penis", which in a lot of cases the cages are fully solid and you cannot confirm that there's a penis under it: that's interpreting.
What confirms it? The shape? Does it need to extrude outwards? What about flat cages? Inverted cages? Internal cages? How can you tell for sure that it's locked over a penis if you can't see it?

Same goes for yonic_chastity_device. If there's an internal view or the vagina is partly visible or exposed, it respects the 'tag what you see', but in most cases they are assuming there's a vagina under there because of the shape but there's no way to tell for sure.

Like, what tag would you even use when there's a female-looking chastity belt locked onto a male scalie with a genital slit? Is it yonic because of the flat shape? Is it phallic because there's a penis hidden in the slit?

Updated

  • 1