The bulk update request #10052 is active.

remove implication christmas_light_bondage (12) -> bondage (117831)
remove implication christmas_light_bondage (12) -> christmas_lights (4019)
create implication string_light_bondage (379) -> bondage (117831)
create implication string_light_bondage (379) -> string_lights (1548)

Reason: alias christmas_light_bondage -> string_light_bondage

I assume christmas_lights doesn't imply string_lights because of things like this: https://www.walmart.com/ip/3-Piece-Reindeer-Christmas-Decorations-Outdoor-Indoor-Lighted-LED-Deer-Family-Set-60-LEDs-Pre-lit-Buck-Doe-Fawn-Home-Yard-Lawn-Xmas/5133548586

However, I don't know how you'd do bondage with non-string christmas lights, and you could also just as easily bind someone with any non-christmas-related string lights.

EDIT: The bulk update request #10052 (forum #435049) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10053 is active.

create implication christmas_lights (4019) -> christmas_decorations (5407)

Reason: Also, christmas lights are christmas decorations

EDIT: The bulk update request #10053 (forum #435050) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10052 (forum #435049) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10053 (forum #435050) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10055 is active.

create alias christmas_light_bondage (12) -> string_light_bondage (379)

Reason: Followup

EDIT: The bulk update request #10055 (forum #435075) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #10058 is pending approval.

create implication string_light_bondage (379) -> restraints (70861)

Reason: When there's string_light_bondage, the string light is restraining binding the character, which qualifies them as restraints right?

_{wow restraints are pretty undertagged on bound posts
i know it's possible but im struggling to come up with an example of a bound character that isn't in restraints}

Fuck, characters can be nonsexually tangled in string lights. I didn't realize there was a difference between bound and bondage. Should string_light_bondage imply bound instead, and perhaps be renamed to not contain bondage?
post #2569732 post #3719567 post #4714165

It seems like bound should imply restraints? Based on the wiki it sounds like restraints are for all instances of these objects, and bound is for when they are specifically in use on a character

wandering_spaniel said:
Fuck, characters can be nonsexually tangled in string lights. I didn't realize there was a difference between bound and bondage. Should string_light_bondage imply bound instead, and perhaps be renamed to not contain bondage?
post #2569732 post #3719567 post #4714165

It seems like bound should imply restraints? Based on the wiki it sounds like restraints are for all instances of these objects, and bound is for when they are specifically in use on a character

If we're expanding the scope of the tag and renaming it at the same time, why not keep it the same and make a new tag for bound_with_string_lights which it can imply

Actually while we're at it, do we want to have bound_with_[material] in general? We have rope/ribbon/tape_bondage but no equivalent for being nonsexually bound

wandering_spaniel said:
It seems like bound should imply restraints? Based on the wiki it sounds like restraints are for all instances of these objects, and bound is for when they are specifically in use on a character

is it restraints if it's alive? would a character tied up with tentacles or a tail or any other particularly flexible/dextrous appendages (whether another's or their own) be in "restraints"?

dba_afish said:
is it restraints if it's alive? would a character tied up with tentacles or a tail or any other particularly flexible/dextrous appendages (whether another's or their own) be in "restraints"?

It would be restrained, and not bound
And no restraints are exclusively not alive. The wikis are pretty clear

snpthecat said:
Actually while we're at it, do we want to have bound_with_[material] in general? We have rope/ribbon/tape_bondage but no equivalent for being nonsexually bound

Is there even a point in differentiating sexual and nonsexual bondage? The line can be so blurry. This isn't something I'm personally into so I'm not sure. I can see people wanting to differentiate between bondage with actual bdsm gear vs bondage with other materials like ropes or string lights, but the confusing bound vs bondage situation doesn't even seem to be for that. I don't like the names either since they sound so similar

wandering_spaniel said:
Is there even a point in differentiating sexual and nonsexual bondage?

it does seem to bit of an odd thing to make a distinction for. like, we don't differentiate sexual or non-sexual vore or-- really most anything else, from what I'm aware.

what if everything: christmas lights, ribbons, I think tinsel was even used a few times, any bondage that uses christmas decorations for bondage sexual or not just be called "christmas bondage"

although seeing all this typed down I realize ribbons are also used as birthday or even random bondage...

what about "holiday bondage" (oh, but what about when they use generic bondage in a holiday setting?)

bleh, whatever I'm gonna disappear again

The bulk update request #10055 (forum #435075) has been approved by @spe.

The tag implication christmas_lights -> christmas_decorations has been rejected by @Cinder.

The tag implication christmas_lights -> christmas_decorations has been approved by @Cinder.