Implicating triple_penetration → vaginal_penetration
Link to implication

Reason:

Triple_penetration is defined as simultaneous oral, anal and vaginal penetration. Therefore all three must be present.

Is that a commonly held definition though? I can easily see this tag being used on three penises going in a butt, or some other combination of orifices. post #374620 post #368801 post #340702 post #315065 post #319095 post #216743 post #209316 post #85283 post #49846 post #98549 post #37274
are some examples of pictures tagged triple_penetration that don't agree with that definition.

Wyvrn said:
Is that a commonly held definition though? I can easily see this tag being used on three penises going in a butt.

It's defined in the wiki as:

Images or animations depicting a female character who is being penetrated orally, vaginally, and anally, all at the same time.

This does not apply to images depicting a character being penetrated by three objects in the same orifice simultaneously; such an image would go under multiple_insertions.

Xch3l said:
It's defined in the wiki as:

Wiki definition is a hackjob. Triple penetration is triple penetration, regardless of what is penetrating. multiple_insertions applies for multiple objects like dildos or vibrators, but three penises is still triple penetration. Two guys in a guy's ass is double penetration. A herm and a guy spitroasting a girl is double penetration. Two guys sharing a herm's backdoor and vag is double penetration. The key point is two penetrations, NOT where the penetrations are occuring.

The wiki was written before the whole penetration and insertion thing, or at least before it was formalized. It should be updated to "such an image would go under multiple_penetration."

Other than that, it's correct. Having one hole overfilled is not the same thing as having all holes filled.

Tags that describe which/how many orifices are getting filled would be useful, but double/triple/multiple_penetration are not good choices.

Double/triple/multiple_penetration should describe how many penises, tentacles, dildos, or whatever are penetrating someone. Two dicks in a single butt should count as double_penetration. That's the generally accepted meaning of those terms, so we should change the wiki definition.

Wyvrn said:
Is that a commonly held definition though?

Yes. That's how the term is used in sex industry, and on other major imageboards such as Danbooru. And it's how urban dictionary defines it: all holes filled.

Wyvrn said:
Tags that describe which/how many orifices are getting filled would be useful, but double/triple/multiple_penetration are not good choices.

Then what would be a good tag for that?

There's already the triple_anal and triple_vaginal tags, and changing the definition of triple_penetration to cover those seems a bit redundant. Though I suppose it might work as an umbrella tag for those.

I'd be in favor of having it refer to those three orifices as the other is less common and it would be nice to have a way to distinguish it

Genjar said:
Yes. That's how the term is used in sex industry, and on other major imageboards such as Danbooru. And it's how urban dictionary defines it: all holes filled.

Then what would be a good tag for that?

There's already the triple_anal and triple_vaginal tags, and changing the definition of triple_penetration to cover those seems a bit redundant. Though I suppose it might work as an umbrella tag for those.

https://www.google.ca/search?newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=YCZ&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=fflb&biw=1344&bih=634&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=triple+penetration+porn&oq=triple+penetration+porn&gs_l=img.3...7489.9911.0.10421.5.5.0.0.0.0.206.486.4j0j1.5.0....0...1c.1.34.img..5.0.0.TppRiECNFx0

Triple penetration GIS suggests otherwise. Triple penetration is just triple penetration, be it two in one hole and one in another, or one in each hole, or all three in one.

Rainbow_Dash said:
I'd be in favor of having it refer to those three orifices as the other is less common and it would be nice to have a way to distinguish it

I'd rather we didn't have it mean something it isn't. have that definition have its own tag, something like all_holes_filled or something non-vague like that. But don't co-opt triple_penetration to mean less than it is.

I still think that triple_penetration would be best for when all three orifices are filled, and use triple_oral, triple_anal, triple_vaginal to cover the others. It would make more sense to me to have it split up like that

Rainbow_Dash said:
I still think that triple_penetration would be best for when all three orifices are filled, and use triple_oral, triple_anal, triple_vaginal to cover the others. It would make more sense to me to have it split up like that

I always thought that triple penetration was as long as multiple holes are being filled, like two in the pink, one in the stink? But that would require almost 5 extra tags I believe instead of just using triple penetration...
Whether the two penetrating the same hole are anal or vaginal, or even urethral. What happens when other holes besides oral/vaginal/anal get involved, like urethral/earsex/etc?
Also does a triple_penetration tag overrule a double_penetration tag? or is it included as well... because if so we can implicate triple_penetration to double_penetration, because you can't have triple penetration without first having double penetration.

Rainbow_Dash said:
I still think that triple_penetration would be best for when all three orifices are filled, and use triple_oral, triple_anal, triple_vaginal to cover the others. It would make more sense to me to have it split up like that

triple_oral, triple_anal, and triple_vaginal should be sub tags to tag those, but they should imply triple_penetration on such images, not replace them. some tag that is the same as the concept all_orifices_filled makes far more sense for triple penetration meaning, well, all orifices filled than just shoving it into the position where it means less than what the words themselves actually mean.

Moon_Moon said:
Also does a triple_penetration tag overrule a double_penetration tag? or is it included as well... because if so we can implicate triple_penetration to double_penetration, because you can't have triple penetration without first having double penetration.

NO. FUCK OFF WITH THIS. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO BREAST SIZES AND NOW THEY ARE RUINED.

123easy said:
NO. FUCK OFF WITH THIS. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO BREAST SIZES AND NOW THEY ARE RUINED.

What do you mean, like small_breasts imply breasts and stuff?

Moon_Moon said:
What do you mean, like small_breasts imply breasts and stuff?

He means that it should not imply all of the sizes/penetration that is contained within

Moon_Moon said:
What do you mean, like small_breasts imply breasts and stuff?

Rainbow_Dash said:
He means that it should not imply all of the sizes/penetration that is contained within

Hyper_breasts implies huge_breasts implies big_breasts implies breasts. Has since 2 years ago when Riversyde arbitrarily put it through. It's made a massive fuckup of the breast size tags.

well, if it's hyper, its obviously huge and big as well, I don't know why huge and big are two separate tags though...

Moon_Moon said:
I don't know why huge and big are two separate tags though...

Let me put 2 examples:
post #441020
The common big breasts

And
post #439808
Huge ones which imo are easier to notice because most of the time they look saggy/not natural/too big in comparison to the rest of the body

If they are still aliased I'm going to delete them then

Rainbow_Dash said:
If they are still aliased I'm going to delete them then

Nothing is aliased.

Rainbow_Dash said:
If they are still aliased I'm going to delete them then

Those are implicated. Hyper breasts → huge breasts → big breasts → breasts.

Whenever someone specifically searches for big breasts, they get everything from big to planet-sized. I suppose those are technically big breasts, but I can see why some users aren't happy with those search results.

Genjar said:
Implicated. Hyper breasts → huge breasts → big breasts → breasts.

Whenever someone specifically searches for big breasts, they get everything from big to planet-sized. I suppose those are technically big breasts, but I can see why some users aren't happy with those search results.

Well I'm sure some users would be unhappy if they had to use half their search terms just to find all the big boobs. It's much more reasonable to expect a user to adjust their search after seeing an image tagged with hyper_breasts than it is to expect a user to know (and search for) two extra, obscure tags which mean "large mammaries."

And no matter how hard you try to standardize these tags, they're never going to be anything more than relative estimates. Users should be able to opt in to the size categorizations, not be forced to opt out.

DrHorse said:
Well I'm sure some users would be unhappy if they had to use half their search terms just to find all the big boobs. It's much more reasonable to expect a user to adjust their search after seeing an image tagged with hyper_breasts than it is to expect a user to know (and search for) two extra, obscure tags which mean "large mammaries."

And no matter how hard you try to standardize these tags, they're never going to be anything more than relative estimates. Users should be able to opt in to the size categorizations, not be forced to opt out.

they do get to opt in to the size catagories. If they want to see huge breasts, they can search for them. If they are unsure of the tags, there is the wiki, which DOES define the sizes and is linked very nicely from the breasts urtag. Feel free to look at the sizes listed in the wiki, as they provided a good rule for size labelling- which was backed by tagging images of breasts of that size with the appropriate tags, not because of the wiki but because that's what those tags were applied to.

123easy said:
they do get to opt in to the size catagories. If they want to see huge breasts, they can search for them. If they are unsure of the tags, there is the wiki, which DOES define the sizes and is linked very nicely from the breasts urtag.

But if they don't care about these arbitrarily defined sizes then they have to use 3 different tags just to get what they want.

People who care about the sizes should be the ones who have to look that stuff up, not the ones who just want to see big tits. There's no good reason not to have big breasts be a meta tag for big breasts.

DrHorse said:
But if they don't care about these arbitrarily defined sizes then they have to use 3 different tags just to get what they want.

People who care about the sizes should be the ones who have to look that stuff up, not the ones who just want to see big tits. There's no good reason not to have big breasts be a meta tag for big breasts.

There's no reason for big breasts to be a meta tag for big breasts, huge breasts, and hyper breasts, then huge breasts to be a meta tag for huge breasts and hyper breasts, and breasts to be a meta tag for regular sized breasts, big breasts, huge breasts, and hyper breasts, all at once. That is ridiculous levels of redundancy. It's dumb. There's also plenty of other tags that are arbitrary, but are understood to be for a good reason. Aside from "I want to see ALL the breasts from B to ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" you've yet to give any decent reason for how it's been forced into.

123easy said:
There's no reason for big breasts to be a meta tag for big breasts, huge breasts, and hyper breasts, then huge breasts to be a meta tag for huge breasts and hyper breasts, and breasts to be a meta tag for regular sized breasts, big breasts, huge breasts, and hyper breasts, all at once. That is ridiculous levels of redundancy. It's dumb. There's also plenty of other tags that are arbitrary, but are understood to be for a good reason. Aside from "I want to see ALL the breasts from B to ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" you've yet to give any decent reason for how it's been forced into.

Huge_breasts™ are big. Hyper_breasts™ are big. Big_breasts™ are big. When a user types big_breasts in the search, they are going to want to see big breasts.

Edit: Also "it's dumb" is a very silly reason to do anything.

DrHorse said:
Edit: Also "it's dumb" is a very silly reason to do anything.

I completely agree. Which is why it should never have been implication chained.

DrHorse said:
Huge_breasts™ are big. Hyper_breasts™ are big. Big_breasts™ are big. When a user types big_breasts in the search, they are going to want to see big breasts.

That's the problem of the tag name. We WERE trying to rename them to deal with that issue when the implication chain occured.

123easy said:
That's the problem of the tag name. We WERE trying to rename them to deal with that issue when the implication chain occured.

If you're planning to reform the way boob tags work then go ahead, but don't just get rid of the implications. Not only do those implications make it easier on the more casual users, but they also make it so that you never have to use more than two tags in a search for large breasts.

I think it's wrong to assume that everyone who's searching for big wants to see huge and hyper as well.

Just because someone searches for big_breasts, doesn't mean that they're looking for everything from big to unnaturally massive. Those are separate tags for a reason.

Genjar said:
I think it's wrong to assume that everyone who's searching for big wants to see huge and hyper as well.

Just because someone searches for big_breasts, doesn't mean that they're looking for everything from big to unnaturally massive. Those are separate tags for a reason.

I said it before "It's much more reasonable to expect a user to adjust their search after seeing an image tagged with hyper_breasts than it is to expect a user to know (and search for) two extra, obscure tags which mean 'large mammaries.'"

I doubt most casual/new users look at the wiki for many of the tags they search. Much less the metatag to the tag that they're searching. But the tag listing is right next to the post.

edit: these are also not very separate tags. Even assuming no tagging error, characters are going to have vastly different sized heads and taggers are going to have different ideas about what can be waved away with artistic license. Searching for specific breast sizes is always going to be a bit of a crapshot.

DrHorse said:
If you're planning to reform the way boob tags work then go ahead, but don't just get rid of the implications. Not only do those implications make it easier on the more casual users, but they also make it so that you never have to use more than two tags in a search for large breasts.

If by "reform" you mean undo two years worth of neglectful damage, yes. It was done on a whim two years ago and was the primary reason I left at the time- If the admins are just going to play around with their powers like that, I wanted no part of it.

DrHorse said:
I said it before "It's much more reasonable to expect a user to adjust their search after seeing an image tagged with hyper_breasts than it is to expect a user to know (and search for) two extra, obscure tags which mean 'large mammaries.'"

I doubt most casual/new users look at the wiki for many of the tags they search. Much less the metatag to the tag that they're searching. But the tag listing is right next to the post.

edit: these are also not very separate tags. Even assuming no tagging error, characters are going to have vastly different sized heads and taggers are going to have different ideas about what can be waved away with artistic license. Searching for specific breast sizes is always going to be a bit of a crapshot.

So suddenly huge and hyper breasts are obscure tags? Then they should be aliased to invalid_tag. I'm fine with that, since it still breaks that stupid implication.

Most casual/new users want to see big breasts when they look for big breasts, not grossly, overly large hyper breasts or breasts that look like they'd fit in with Eiken. There's a reason it's seen as a niche title at best and reviled in general, because it goes too far with breast size and most people don't want to see that when they want to see large breasts.

As for vastly different sized heads- perspective. If the character isn't drawn completely out of proportion, their body size ratio will always allow for breasts that are hefty yet not overly large. This extends even to macro-sized beings- if the tits are in proportion, they aren't hyper.

123easy said:
So suddenly huge and hyper breasts are obscure tags? Then they should be aliased to invalid_tag. I'm fine with that, since it still breaks that stupid implication.

I would be perfectly okay with that. I don't agree with the the reasoning (it's dumb), but at least no one will miss out on boobs slightly larger than a head because they didn't know that "big" is completely unrelated to "huge."

I meant to say that I'll probably remove that implication so we can start tagging these and then make like one umbrella term for larger breasts

Rainbow_Dash said:
I meant to say that I'll probably remove that implication so we can start tagging these and then make like one umbrella term for larger breasts

big_bouncing_jubbly-wubblies.

Well played