Implicating clothed_sex → clothing
Link to implication

Reason:

you cant have clothed sex without clothing

Is clothed_sex really a valid tag when you can just search sex clothed?

If it's actually a valid tag, I agree with the implication.

Yes it is and one of my favorites, approved

Shouldn't it be implicated to clothed instead?

Genjar said:
Shouldn't it be implicated to clothed instead?

Isn't clothed redundant? They're being used for the same thing actually.

Clothing is an umbrella tag, whereas clothed should only be tagged for worn clothing. So clothed_sex → clothed → clothing implication chain would be better..

'course, that's only if we're going to keep the clothed tag. As you said, it might be redundant. It's pretty much just '-nude', as far as I can see.

I agree with above. Never really realized how many tags we have for clothes. Do we have one for wearing shirts as pants?

anon_X said:
I agree with above. Never really realized how many tags we have for clothes. Do we have one for wearing shirts as pants?

No but we should

Genjar said:
Clothing is an umbrella tag, whereas clothed should only be tagged for worn clothing. So clothed_sex → clothed → clothing implication chain would be better..

'course, that's only if we're going to keep the clothed tag. As you said, it might be redundant. It's pretty much just '-nude', as far as I can see.

While clothed is sort of a '-nude' tag as you noted, I think there's enough variation between what's actually nude, what's tastefully unclothed or partially clothed, and what's fully clothed, to warrant it.