Implicating Doggystyle → All_fours
Link to implication

Reason:

Logic: for the position to be called "doggystyle", being on all fours is a necessity.

If this goes through, will require a rework of the wiki and general way we use the tag; Currently it's only meant to be in use if someone is on all fours when they aren't naturally (ferals and the like) and not havign sex (which is just tagged doggystyle).

Also who's to say someone's character has only 4 limbs? :o

For that matter, isn't doggystyle covered by "from_behind all_fours"?

What about images of someone being penetrated while their arms are being held behind their back, but are bent over completely? That's still technically doggystyle, isn't it?

JoeX said:
What about images of someone being penetrated while their arms are being held behind their back, but are bent over completely? That's still technically doggystyle, isn't it?

you mean something like this?

post #33748

Butterscotch said:
you mean something like this?

post #33748

Yes. In my mind, I was picturing the arms being held parallel, but it's exactly what I had in mind.
Here's a similar example. http://www.furaffinity.net/view/12546428/

Yeah, this sounds dubious at best.

That's covered under "from_behind". All_fours is the classical doggy style, this would be arms_tied or whatever the tag is for that instead of all_fours.

123easy said:
For that matter, isn't doggystyle covered by "from_behind all_fours"?

I would say no. "Doggystyle" implies sex of some sort, whereas an image can be

God, I should have been keeping up with tag usage. Now I have to question things and make a thread lulz.

Under current wikis, yes, though I think the tag is still useful. Perhaps "doggystyle" should imply both?