Implicating disembodied_penis → faceless_male
Link to implication

Reason:

Disembodied penises don't have faces.

agreed...

Could be herm/dickgirl though.

furballs_dc said:
Could be herm/dickgirl though.

disembodied_penis already implies male. See forum #27523.

Disembodied penis could just be a penis without a body.

Halite said:
Disembodied penis could just be a penis without a body.

ghostcock?

Theclarinetist said:
ghostcock?

indeed, faceless would imply that there's a body.
There's definitely images out there of just floating penises.

Halite said:
indeed, faceless would imply that there's a body.
There's definitely images out there of just floating penises.

now that you mention it I have seen a couple around like that...

More than a couple. Tons.

These are disembodied penii:
post #361745 post #360821 post #375260

Whereas faceless male is tagged for images where you can see more than a penis. I don't see the need to implicate it: if someone searches for faceless males, I doubt that they're looking for disembodied cocks. Those are two different kinks.

Theclarinetist said:
ghostcock?

We have a tag for that too, btw. Ghost penis.
Which is tagged for transparent, barely noticeable, cocks.

Genjar said:
We have a tag for that too, btw. Ghost penis.
Which is tagged for transparent, barely noticeable, cocks.

wow... e6 has a tag for literally EVERYTHING O_O

faceless_male should be reserved for when the full male is visible but doesnt have a face. having it on disembodied penises makes no sense

Then what tag should be used for anything that's between disembodied_penis and fully-visible but faceless male? With the recent wiki change, about 95% of tags under faceless_male are mistagged...and those need to be moved somewhere. But where?

Genjar said:
Then what tag should be used for anything that's between disembodied_penis and fully-visible but faceless male? With the recent wiki change, about 95% of tags under faceless_male are mistagged...and those need to be moved somewhere. But where?

Faceless_male is used for any males that are visible mostly in whole, but are off the focus of the image and are thus cut off. Ippiki went in to change the definition to his preferred one, rather than the previous long-standing usage and definition that was agreed upon prior, which was just "Where you can see a male in the picture, but the male's face is out of sight, concealed, or completely nonexistent", aka the usage we've had all this time.