Implicating Cervical_penetration → Vaginal_penetration
Link to implication

Reason:

What about butt cervixes?

Halite said:
What about butt cervixes?

and ass pussys

What if a fetus was fucking his mother from the inside, but his fetus penis wasn't long enough to penetrate the vagina, just the cervix? This implication wouldn't properly account for that possibility.

Wyvrn said:
What if a fetus was fucking his mother from the inside, but his fetus penis wasn't long enough to penetrate the vagina, just the cervix?

What...

I'm just saying. This is furries, after all.

....I'm ashamed to admit it, but I considered the topic that Wyvrn stated before reading this thread. Someone out there will have drawn an xray shot of someone inside the womb fucking the cervix, somewhere. Probably macro or balloon/inflation fetishes, though I wouldn't put it past babyfurs.

Wyvrn said:
What if a fetus was fucking his mother from the inside, but his fetus penis wasn't long enough to penetrate the vagina, just the cervix? This implication wouldn't properly account for that possibility.

If we can imply wings on wingless pegasi, then we can damn well imply vaginal_penetration on fetal oedipi.

DrHorse said:
If we can imply wings on wingless pegasi, then we can damn well imply vaginal_penetration on fetal oedipi.

If they're pegasi, they have wings. If they're wingless, either they have been mutilated (in which case we can still tell they're a pegasi by the stubs of the wings left over) or they aren't a pegasi, and it's a mistag.

123easy said:
If they're pegasi, they have wings. If they're wingless, either they have been mutilated (in which case we can still tell they're a pegasi by the stubs of the wings left over) or they aren't a pegasi, and it's a mistag.

My point was that they're both such outside possibilities that they shouldn't affect the validity of an implication.

Wyvrn said:
I'm just saying. This is furries, after all.

QFT.

DrHorse said:
My point was that they're both such outside possibilities that they shouldn't affect the validity of an implication.

And my point was that either they have mutilated wings or are mistagged if it's a wingless pegasi, as their wings are their defining feature from other horses. If it's a possibility to have someone penetrating the cervix without penetrating the vagina, then it shouldn't be implied. Only if it's occuring in both cases, it should be tagged in both cases.

123easy said:
And my point was that either they have mutilated wings or are mistagged if it's a wingless pegasi, as their wings are their defining feature from other horses. If it's a possibility to have someone penetrating the cervix without penetrating the vagina, then it shouldn't be implied. Only if it's occuring in both cases, it should be tagged in both cases.

If the majority of their wings are gone, then they shouldn't be tagged with wings.

DrHorse said:
If the majority of their wings are gone, then they shouldn't be tagged with wings.

If wing_stubs takes off, then it shoud be unimplicated so images of pegasi that have mutilated wings can be tagged with it. Unless it does, though, it should remain so that at least the remnants of the wings are tagged in some fashion (and if wing stubs does take off, then pegasi tagged with wings that have wing stubs can be cleaned up to the proper tag)

123easy said:
If wing_stubs takes off, then it shoud be unimplicated so images of pegasi that have mutilated wings can be tagged with it.

Oh goody, then we'll get to tag thousands of winged pegasi manually.

I guess that does put the 124 posts tagged with cervical_penetration in perspective.

But are they mutilated Pegasai at that point or are they unicorns with weird lumps on their back?

Azazial said:
But are they mutilated Pegasai at that point or are they unicorns with weird lumps on their back?

If they are 'weird lumps' that cannot be understood to be wing stubs, then certainly just tag them unicorn and tumor or something. If they are obviously the stubs of wings that have been removed in some fashion, as the one lone image under the wing_stub tag shows, then they should be tagged as such.

DrHorse said:
Oh goody, then we'll get to tag thousands of winged pegasi manually.

I guess that does put the 124 posts tagged with cervical_penetration in perspective.

We tag thousands of other images manually. Sometimes we've had to do quite massive tag edits like that in the past. One more isn't a huge deal.

There's already more than enough tags that should be sorted out, and personally, I can't even keep up with the new posts without hitting the hourly edit limit.

I'm not too keen on changes that'd create that much additional work for us.

Someone doing consistently good work like you shouldn't be bumping against any edit limits.

I'm surprised there are so few privileged+ accounts on e621. Are the admins really picky about who they give it to, or are users supposed to be the ones to ask for account upgrades?

Wyvrn said:
Someone doing consistently good work like you shouldn't be bumping against any edit limits.

I'm surprised there are so few privileged+ accounts on e621. Are the admins really picky about who they give it to, or are users supposed to be the ones to ask for account upgrades?

Hmm. Lets try to fix that.