create implication female_ejaculation -> female_orgasm
Posted under Tags
create implication female_ejaculation -> female_orgasm
-1. female_ejaculation is a specific visual, and since illustrations need not adhere to real-world sense, there could be an image of someone portrayed as bored out of their mind and still performing the action. (Not to mention any anatomical incongruities, though I doubt that's an issue for this request.) Then there's a matter of focus: if an image is a close-up of genitalia, tagging female_orgasm likely wouldn't be appropriate without the whole/more of the figure (or so I'd figure), and if the focus is off of the genitals and ejaculate, the implication would bring up false positives when searching for their inclusion.
I suppose ejaculation doesn't imply orgasm as is, but it seems kind of silly to me to say one doesn't imply the other, in males or females. Ejaculation happens only during orgasm, and is more indicative of orgasm than the facial expression cues the current orgasm wiki seems to say you should use. And if we're saying that images don't need to follow real world sensabilities so that a woman or man could be ejaculating but not orgasming, why couldn't their expressions be bored or blank with them orgasming too? I mean, I know plenty of women (and men) who don't orgasm with mouths open, tongues hanging out, stupid grins on their faces, rolling eyes, drooling, or etc.
I suppose at that point the orgasm tag should just be flat out eliminated as undefinable, but I just think ejaculation is at least a clear cut enough sign for orgasm in both sexes for the purposes of tagging.
The only issue I can see per say is the controversy over the differences between "squirting" and "female ejaculation", though I see that no more being an actual issue in terms of pictures than trying to argue whether pictures of men/futas cumming could artistically be representing excessive pre-cum.