Topic: Autoknotting implications request

The bulk update request #12570 is pending approval.

create implication oral_autoknotting (9) -> oral_knotting (2680)
create implication oral_autoknotting (9) -> autoknotting (87)
create implication autoknotting (87) -> knotting (32217)
create implication autoknotting (87) -> penetration (989017)

Reason: Not largely used tags that are yet to have any implication added.

EDIT: After some conversations below and in similar topic #60382 I believe knotting is a tag not reserved to sex situations as it can be included when a character uses knotted sex toys; thus this edited BUR request simply tries to create implications to the act of knotting and penetrating (used both for sex and sexual objects).

Let me know what you all think about these four implications.

Why would oral_autoknotting imply knotting instead of autoknotting?

Also I feel like it might be best to reject the implication and put it in this BUR, since the arguments for and against this BUR apply to the implication too (e.g. should oral_autoknotting as a tag exist, whether *autoknotting should imply *knotting)

You may also want to imply oral_autoknotting to penis in own mouth

Sometimes I wonder if the number of auto* tags is getting to be a bit much. At the very least, it's not unusual for people to not realize the sex vs masturbation distinction for the normal tag vs the auto* tag and tag them both together, resulting in posts being tagged both masturbation and sex, but it's also seeming like there's a number of auto* tags that people (including me) don't know exist. As it is, knotting doesn't imply sex, so is it necessary to have an autoknotting for masturbation when knotting isn't sex? Would a knotted_dildo fully in someone's anus be autoknotting instead of knotting? And tags like oral_autoknotting are beginning to feeling like an unnecessary combo tag.

snpthecat said:
Why would oral_autoknotting imply knotting instead of autoknotting?

Also I feel like it might be best to reject the implication and put it in this BUR, since the arguments for and against this BUR apply to the implication too (e.g. should oral_autoknotting as a tag exist, whether *autoknotting should imply *knotting)

Good point. I will change the oral_autoknotting implication to autoknotting instead.
However I feel is is best to leave the implication request of the other BUR isolated, since I feel it may be more problematic to approve and so it's better to discuss it separately.

snpthecat said:
You may also want to imply oral_autoknotting to penis in own mouth

I don't see why. It would make more sense for autofellatio to imply that, yet it doesn't.

watsit said:
Sometimes I wonder if the number of auto* tags is getting to be a bit much. At the very least, it's not unusual for people to not realize the sex vs masturbation distinction for the normal tag vs the auto* tag and tag them both together, resulting in posts being tagged both masturbation and sex, but it's also seeming like there's a number of auto* tags that people (including me) don't know exist. As it is, knotting doesn't imply sex, so is it necessary to have an autoknotting for masturbation when knotting isn't sex? Would a knotted_dildo fully in someone's anus be autoknotting instead of knotting? And tags like oral_autoknotting are beginning to feeling like an unnecessary combo tag.

I understand your dilemma about knotting and sex as it also generated a similar internal dialogue on myself; and I too wonder if these auto tags really deserve their own tag when a combination of others already does the job. But I don't want to leave these tags floating with no implication or alias to anything.

One day someone should make a BUR that congregates a lot of the auto[whatever] that seem irrelevant and see if people are on with the idea of destroying them. I would vote yes probably.

Listen, you know what? You both are right. Since knotting isn't exclusive to sex with partners and can include knotted sex toy in all situations (anal, oral, vaginal...) I will cancel topic #60382 and add the implication request here; as well as other edits like removing the autopenetration and autofellatio implications requests due to again sex toys being able to use the tags due to its ambiguity.

urizread said:
Listen, you know what? You both are right. Since knotting isn't exclusive to sex with partners and can include knotted sex toy in all situations (anal, oral, vaginal...) I will cancel topic #60382 and add the implication request here; as well as other edits like removing the autopenetration and autofellatio implications requests due to again sex toys being able to use the tags due to its ambiguity.

I don't see why autoknotting would allow a knotted dildo in place of a knotted penis. None of the other auto* tags work that way (autotitfuck is penile masturbation, autofootjob is penile/vaginal/cloacal/anal_masturbation, autocunnilingus is vaginal_masturbation)

urizread said:

snpthecat said:
You may also want to imply oral_autoknotting to penis in own mouth

I don't see why. It would make more sense for autofellatio to imply that, yet it doesn't.

Fellatio and autofellatio don't and will not imply penis_in_mouth because auto/fellatio can be done without it, see topic #57329 Wait no, that's just for oral_penetration. What does everyone else think?