Hi,

I have seen many posts where you can notice or suggest an erection of a character, but at the same time the penis is not visible (ie. through pants).
A good example is this post:
post #37468

That breakes the rule "tag what you see" (oh no!) as you can not see a penis and it's still a tag...

So maybe we should remove the implication? Or maybe we have to add a new tag like "erection_through_pants"? :)
I'm sure some people will search for it xD

- Artman

I don't think that removing the Implication just because a few pictures doesn't work, while it applies fine for almost everything else is the way to go. I mean, implications are not always going to be 100%.

To bad you couldn't anti-tag; do something like -penis which would then cause the automatic implication be ignored in the general listing doing normal viewing or tag searching.

But then; even if its a hidden penis thru clothing that is a obvious erection, one could say the penis is still there; you can still see it.. its just not explicitly seen.

well, now that I looked at the picture, erection nor penis fits. as it isn't clearly obvious. As even the bugle doesn't have a clear penis shape or stretching indicating a penis.

I removed both penis and erection as they didn't fit the theme of the picture in regards to "what you see". I left bulge. bulge so so far does not implicate anything.

Well, technically you don't see the erection either... maybe there's something else stuffed in his pants that just looks like an erection. :P

Maybe use a tag like "pants_bulge" or something?

The clitoris becomes erect, although most people don't notice, so the implication should be removed.

Ultima Weapon

I'm not sure how many people would correlate erection to a female clitoris.
While you may be technically correct, I don't think that most (or enough) people search for erections try to find an erect clitoris.

Murmillos said:
I'm not sure how many people would correlate erection to a female clitoris.
While you may be technically correct, I don't think that most (or enough) people search for erections try to find an erect clitoris.

I think some people do, but there's no tag for it since we obviously don't tag it under erection. Maybe we could create ther erect_clitoris tag?

Ultima_Weapon said:
I think some people do, but there's no tag for it since we obviously don't tag it under erection. Maybe we could create ther erect_clitoris tag?

well we have this enlarged_clitoris

slyroon said:
well we have this enlarged_clitoris

Eh, not so much. An erect clitoris doesn't have to be especially prominent, just as a huge clit doesn't exactly have to be erect.

The question is, do you think a comic can clearly distinguish between a erect clit and a enlarged clit?

Murmillos said:
The question is, do you think a comic can clearly distinguish between a erect clit and a enlarged clit?

Yes, I think they do, and i'd like to buy a vowel.

Murmillos said:
well, now that I looked at the picture, erection nor penis fits. as it isn't clearly obvious. As even the bugle doesn't have a clear penis shape or stretching indicating a penis.

I removed both penis and erection as they didn't fit the theme of the picture in regards to "what you see". I left bulge. bulge so so far does not implicate anything.

Bulge is good for that, you're right, I simply didn't know about that tag :)
I think that's the solution since if there is a penis shape visible the tag "penis" is appropriate.
Thanks :)

I do still agree that the implication of erection to penis should be removed. After all, nipples and a woman's clitoris can get erect as well.

123easy said:
I do still agree that the implication of erection to penis should be removed. After all, nipples and a woman's clitoris can get erect as well.

Yes, nipples can get erect too, but please show me somebody using the context of word erection in terms of talking about nipples; while not clarifying they are talking about nipples.

The term erection (used alone) is nearly always used and understood to refer to an erection of the penis; and is often silly and out of place to use it in other context forms.

erect nipples - 176 tags

as for clitoris.. I don't think that those can be drawn prominently enough to make it 'clear' that one is erect or not.. however, not a single thing in the world keeps you from tagging erect clitoris if it suits the image.

All that said... rather then removing the erection implies penis... how about we alias erection to erect_penis?

SnowWolf said:
erect nipples - 176 tags

as for clitoris.. I don't think that those can be drawn prominently enough to make it 'clear' that one is erect or not.. however, not a single thing in the world keeps you from tagging erect clitoris if it suits the image.

All that said... rather then removing the erection implies penis... how about we alias erection to erect_penis?

Eh. i'd rather use it as a metatag for all the erect tags. But all current erection tagged images I'd agree- make 'em erect_penis.

Erection should not imply penis. For example
post #155728
and
post #152059
should have the erection tag, but not penis. Bulge, in this case, doesn't cut it. And erect_penis is redundant.

should have the erection tag, but not penis. Bulge, in this case, doesn't cut it. And erect_penis is redundant.

see previous statement about erect nipples and clitorises. :p

I AGREE with you, that said, ... unnessicary.. but not nessicarily redundant <3

erect_penis isn't redundant. There are cases of penises that are flaccid as well.

123easy said:
erect_penis isn't redundant. There are cases of penises that are flaccid as well.

Right, but why have erect_penis when you can just have the penis and erection tag? I don't think it adds anything beneficial.

It's more "we could rephrase it in this manner to be unambiguous and end the debate about if erection should imply penis."

SnowWolf said:
It's more "we could rephrase it in this manner to be unambiguous and end the debate about if erection should imply penis."

This, plus it keeps the tag format standardized.