The bulk update request #9861 has been rejected.

create implication penis_in_pussy (174303) -> pussy (910013)
create implication penis_in_pussy (174303) -> penis (1579028)

Reason: If you are depicting neither a penis, nor a pussy, it's pretty tricky to depict a penis inside of a pussy.

EDIT: The bulk update request #9861 (forum #432760) has been rejected by @spe.

hurogmeten said:
Reason: If you are depicting neither a penis, nor a pussy, it's pretty tricky to depict a penis inside of a pussy.

No, because obscured_penetration exists.

post #4889908

thegreatwolfgang said:
No, because obscured_penetration exists.

post #4889908

By that logic, one could assume that’s an anal womb.

titanusoptronix said:
By that logic, one could assume that’s an anal womb.

No, we don't make assumptions, but rather deductions. This means you use logic and the visible evidence present to make a deduction.
You don't deduce anal_womb because there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

We can deduce that the character giving is male from their exposed balls and overall masculine body, but you don't deduce that he is a maleherm because there is no evidence that says it.
Similarly, the character receiving can be deduced as female from of their exposed breasts and lack of visible male genitalia.

Now, we have a male/female interaction and both of them are engaged in sex/penile_penetration (from their posture and cum_leaking).
You can argue that it is ambiguous_penetration since we cannot make out which orifice he is penetrating, which should be the case for its parent - post #4889433.

However, since you can see a cutaway with sperm_cell swimming to an ovum, you can deduce that a male_penetrating_female would require vaginal_penetration for impregnation to occur.
Thus, penis_in_pussy (which implies penile_penetration & vaginal_penetration).

The bulk update request #9861 (forum #432760) has been rejected by @spe.

I kinda would like it if this tag only got used for cases where you can see both organs directly, and just use the penetration tags otherwise… but that would require a ton of retagging, and these implications would cause of a ton of mistags if approved in their current state. And a tag like that might not even be practical to enforce.