Topic: Tag implication: oral_sandwich -> collaborative_oral

The tag implication #69116 oral_sandwich -> collaborative_oral is pending approval.

Reason: oral sandwich is a type of collaborative oral; involves 2 characters orally stimulating a character

Is this the same thing? Collaborative_oral seems more for two or more characters collaborating on performing the same type of oral on another character (e.g. two characters performing fellatio on another, two characters rimming another, two characters performing cunnilingus on another), while oral_sandwich seems to be when two or more characters are separately performing different types of oral on another (e.g. one performing fellatio while another is rimming). It's less "collaborative" as they're not necessarily working together (e.g. the character rimming is oblivious to or uncaring toward the one performing fellatio, and vice versa), and more separate acts that just happen to be on the same target.

The bulk update request #12070 is pending approval.

create implication collaborative_oral (6218) -> oral (345302)
create implication collaborative_oral (6218) -> collaborative_sex (10045)
remove implication collaborative_fellatio (6007) -> collaborative_sex (10045)
remove implication collaborative_cunnilingus (105) -> collaborative_sex (10045)
remove implication collaborative_rimming (99) -> collaborative_sex (10045)
create implication oral_sandwich (1242) -> oral (345302)
create implication oral_sandwich (1242) -> sex (1203624)
create implication collaborative_rimming (99) -> collaborative_oral (6218)

Reason: Rerouting implications (edit: added rimming too)
Oral sandwich seems worth keeping, giving it implications

watsit said:

It's less "collaborative" as they're not necessarily working together (e.g. the character rimming is oblivious to or uncaring toward the one performing fellatio, and vice versa), and more separate acts that just happen to be on the same target.

According to collaborative sex, they have to be doing the same sex act to be counted

As to whether it would count as collaborative... There's an argument for it but the arguments against it are more persuasive.

snpthecat said:
Reason: Rerouting implications

May as well handle collaborative_rimming there too.

EDIT:
I'm also not sure collaborative_oral can imply collaborative_sex, in much the same way as oral can't imply sex. If a character has multiple heads, and they both work together for autofellatio/autocunnilingus/autorimming/autocloacalingus, that could be considered collaborative_oral since it's two independent heads working together, but be oral_masturbation instead since its their own genitals. Or a single-headed character with one other character performing oral on one of themselves. That would be sex (and masturbation), but not collaborative sex.