Topic: [REJECTED] Gender Rimming Gender Implications

The bulk update request #1419 has been rejected.

Reason: Follows the standard set by the *_penetrating_* tag group.

Incomplete, will add the */* implications later.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1419 (forum #318101) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Do we need tags like this for specific sex acts? Should there also be <gender>_fellatiating_<gender>, <gender>_fingering_<gender>, etc? What would be the term for handjob (handjobing?) and cunnilingus (cunnilingusing?)?

watsit said:
(...)

I asked in the Discord server and people seemed generally in favour of the idea ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

watsit said:
Do we need tags like this for specific sex acts? Should there also be <gender>_fellatiating_<gender>, <gender>_fingering_<gender>, etc? What would be the term for handjob (handjobing?) and cunnilingus (cunnilingusing?)?

The BUR tackles specific sexual acts indeed, though given it's size, perhaps it can help? Not every rimming act is a penetrative act, thus removing the <gender>_penetrating_<gender> possibility for specification, and an anus can be expected in every gender, which just increases the variety, specifically if there's more than 2 characters in the image.

For fingering and perhaps fisting, this sort of subset can definitely function as a replacement for the lack of <gender>_penetrating_<gender>. I'm unsure about the need for these types of subset tags for handjob, fellatio, cunnilingus and etc, as those actions are tied to a more determined genitalia, limiting the number of possible genders involved, and thus not requiring any more spefication (since you can search based on <gender>/<gender> + <sexual_act> alone). It would also be odd to not have something like female_fellatiating_female, when the current norm covers every gender type, even if it isn't a thing since females shouldn't possess a penis.

hairnoi said:
even if it isn't a thing since females shouldn't possess a penis.

strapons

strikerman said:
strapons

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t count as fellatio if it’s a strapon…

hairnoi said:
I'm unsure about the need for these types of subset tags for handjob, fellatio, cunnilingus and etc, as those actions are tied to a more determined genitalia, limiting the number of possible genders involved, and thus not requiring any more spefication (since you can search based on <gender>/<gender> + <sexual_act> alone).

It may be more limited, but not by too much. The one doing the act can be of any gender, while there's still four that it can be done to (<gender>_fellatiating_male/gynomorph/herm/maleherm). And no doubt there are people who have a preference to males, gynomorphs, herms, or maleherms being the one doing or receiving oral, and not the other way around. Same for handjobs or cunnilingus. These would all be a lot of potential combinations, which gets pretty ridiculous pretty fast. Not to mention this is missing the character forms (anthro_rimming_human, feral_fellatiating_taur, humanoid_handjobing_humanoid), which can no doubt be relevant to some people.

That actually makes me curious what the female equivalent of a handjob is. The wikis seem to suggest vaginal_fingering, but isn't it possible to stimulate the clitoris and achieve orgasm without actually fingering the vaginal cavity? Plus, fingering is shared between sex and masturbation acts (unlike handjob which is specifically sex), so female/gynomorph + vaginal_fingering can't indicate who's fingering who.

watsit said:
That actually makes me curious what the female equivalent of a handjob is. The wikis seem to suggest vaginal_fingering, but isn't it possible to stimulate the clitoris and achieve orgasm without actually fingering the vaginal cavity?

~clitoral_fingering ~vaginal_fingering -fingering_self or with fingering_partner?

scaliespe said:
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t count as fellatio if it’s a strapon…

strapon_fellatio or sex_toy_fellatio. Probably others too.

animperfectpatsy said:

strapon_fellatio or sex_toy_fellatio. Probably others too.

But sex_toy_fellatio does not imply fellatio because it isn’t technically the same thing, and so it would still not be possible to include it in a *_fellating_* BUR.

scaliespe said:
But sex_toy_fellatio does not imply fellatio because it isn’t technically the same thing, and so it would still not be possible to include it in a *_fellating_* BUR.

Indeed. Also, dunno if there were any plans towards better handling fellatio vs irrumatio.

animperfectpatsy said:
Indeed. Also, dunno if there were any plans towards better handling fellatio vs irrumatio.

Those are a mess. I do have some thoughts on what to do about those tags though:
Implicate both irrumatio and fellatio to oral_penetration, which can also include sex toy fellatio. Separate tongue jobs or penis licking into separate tags. And if this is the case, we probably don’t need to worry about *_fellating_* since it is a type of penetration, after all, so the regular *_penetrating_* tags will serve the same purpose.

scaliespe said:
Implicate both irrumatio and fellatio to oral_penetration

That's been suggested before, but it's not always valid because you can perform fellatio without actually penetrating orally.

watsit said:
That's been suggested before, but it's not always valid because you can perform fellatio without actually penetrating orally.

Yes, hence:

scaliespe said:
Separate tongue jobs or penis licking into separate tags.

…or whatever else normally counts as non-penetrative fellatio. All those other things are still encapsulated by oral.

Alternatively, we could revive the penis_in_mouth tag, and have it imply oral_penetration and penile_penetration, and have irrumatio imply it, and leave it separate from fellatio, only tagging both fellatio and penis_in_mouth for penetrative fellatio. (Or, what about adding a penetrative_fellatio tag that implies both fellatio and penis_in_mouth?)

This has also made me think that, as opposed to using these *_rimming_* tags, we can have some blanket term for all oral sex, which would include rimming and fellating and cunnilingus in order to minimize the number of (gender)_(sex_act)_(gender) tags we need to cover everything. So, something like *_oralling_* (we can come up with a better word than “oralling,” but whatever).

scaliespe said:
Yes, hence:

…or whatever else normally counts as non-penetrative fellatio.

Non-penetrative fellatio is... fellatio. Penis licking or tongue jobs are already separate tags that don't implicate fellatio, and it doesn't have to be visible for it to count as fellatio:
post #2113583

scaliespe said:
Alternatively, we could revive the penis_in_mouth tag, and have it imply oral_penetration and penile_penetration, and have irrumatio imply it, and leave it separate from fellatio, only tagging both fellatio and penis_in_mouth for penetrative fellatio.

I don't think irrumatio should imply oral_penetration if fellatio doesn't, since the main difference is who's taking the active role and not strictly how the penis and mouth connect.

scaliespe said:
This has also made me think that, as opposed to using these *_rimming_* tags, we can have some blanket term for all oral sex, which would include rimming and fellating and cunnilingus in order to minimize the number of (gender)_(sex_act)_(gender) tags we need to cover everything. So, something like *_oralling_* (we can come up with a better word than “oralling,” but whatever).

The oral tag is for oral sex acts. But why only oral sex acts? There are non-penetrative acts for vaginal, anal, and penile sex. The *_penetrating_* tags are relatively newish, and if I recall correctly, one of the concerns with adding them was the exponential tag growth since x_penetrating_y and y_penetrating_x needed to remain distinct. I mean, this BUR is making all these new tags from adding literally just one sex act, and it's not even complete ((form)_penetrating_(form) exists, but the rimming equivalents for them aren't included here).

watsit said:
((form)_penetrating_(form) exists, but the rimming equivalents for them aren't included here).

Don't forget (gender)_penetrating_(form) and vice-versa, e.g. male_penetrating_feral or anthro_penetrating_female

strikerman said:
Don't forget (gender)_penetrating_(form) and vice-versa, e.g. male_penetrating_feral or anthro_penetrating_female

I feel like these are unnecessary. The same result could be achieved if we allowed gender/form combination tags (ie. male_human or female_anthro) in conjunction with the (gender)_penetrating_(gender) tags. Not to mention, the gender/form tags would be much more useful, as they apply outside of penetration scenarios.

Edit: it seems that only the (gender)_feral tags are aliased away. The others are hardly used, however.

The bulk update request #1419 (forum #318101) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

Rejection reason is at topic #36869. In summary, to mitigate combinatorial explosion, the mods will be taking a different approach.