Topic: Tag Implication: spitroast -> group_sex

Implicating spitroast → group_sex
Link to implication

Reason:

Spitroast is a sex act between three, or even four*, participants.

*Unless it's called something different with four participants but I don't believe it is.

EDIT: The tag implication spitroast -> group_sex (forum #154651) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

DragonFox69 said:
Implicating spitroast → group_sex
Link to implication

Reason:

Spitroast is a sex act between three, or even four*, participants.

*Unless it's called something different with four participants but I don't believe it is.

What if there are two characters (let's call them A and B) and A is penetrated in ass by B's normal penis and in mouth by B's shitting_dicknipples?

Granberia said:
shitting_dicknipples

;_;

Granberia said:
What if there are two characters (let's call them A and B) and A is penetrated in ass by B's normal penis and in mouth by B's shitting_dicknipples?

I was thinking about how two characters could perform the act by things like oral + fisting, penetration + finger_in_mouth, etc but I didn't think that such acts would qualify as a spitroast.

I've always understood this tag to be more of a sex position (with strapons or penises) rather than being all_three_filled_-1. However, currently there are 65 posts under spitroast solo that mostly involve tentacles that have been tagged by a variety of different people.

Do you think we should open this up to tentacles in the same manner as all_three_filled, or leave it exclusively as a group_sex position?

parasprite said:
I've always understood this tag to be more of a sex position (with strapons or penises) rather than being all_three_filled_-1. However, currently there are 65 posts under spitroast solo that mostly involve tentacles that have been tagged by a variety of different people.

Do you think we should open this up to tentacles in the same manner as all_three_filled, or leave it exclusively as a group_sex position?

I think it should be left as a group_sex position.

I know how much tentacles can complicate things when tagging. Using the all_three_filled tag for tentacles is fair enough, since it's an accurate description of what's going on in the image, but since tentacles aren't considered to be characters I don't think they should be considered to be part of a sexual position either.

Granberia said:
B's shitting_dicknipples?

One does not simply... shit with their dicknips

I suggest to (also) implicate sandwich_position and train_position to group_sex. Those two tags definition involves how characters are facing each other, so tentacles and shitting dicknipples are rather out of question.

Granberia said:
I suggest to (also) implicate sandwich_position and train_position to group_sex. Those two tags definition involves how characters are facing each other, so tentacles and shitting dicknipples are rather out of question.

Cleaned up the tentacles in all of these (mostly spitroast) and one actual spitroast (which I retagged as spitroast_(object)) and approved all.

The tag implication spitroast -> group_sex (forum #154651) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.