[REJECTED] The sex toy implication initiative

create implication anal_beads -> sex_toy
create implication artificial_vagina -> sex_toy
create implication butt_plug -> sex_toy
create implication aneros -> sex_toy
create implication cock_ring -> sex_toy
create implication dildo -> sex_toy
create implication urethral_beads -> sex_toy
create implication vibrator -> sex_toy
create implication bunny_vibrator -> vibrator
create implication bunny_vibrator -> dildo
create implication public_vibrator -> vibrator
create implication public_vibrator -> public
create implication vibrator_in_anus -> vibrator
create implication vibrator_in_anus -> anal_object_insertion
create implication vibrator_on_nipple -> vibrator
create implication vibrator_on_penis -> vibrator
create implication vibrator_under_clothes -> vibrator

Link to request

There was some uncertainty over the vibrator_under_clothes -> vibrator implication when I brought it up on Discord (mostly due the "tag what you see" policy) but since remote_control_vibrator implies vibrator I don't see why this would pose a problem. I am open to arguments against it, though.

Other than that I hope this is fairly self-explanatory.

EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1711 (forum #147735) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Since no one else wants to say it, I will: the "sex toy" concept is exceedingly broad for a tag as it refers to any number of objects that have next to nothing in common other than being used for getting people off. To me, it doesn't make sense to have an umbrella tag for such a disjointed group of tags as these; anal beads and artificial vaginas look nothing alike and are used in completely different ways, so where's the logic in putting them together under one tag? Not to mention the minefield of other, less common masturbatory aids like sex dolls, penis pumps, or electrostim devices. Better to purge the tag entirely and let people use tag_group:sex_objects for finding related tags if necessary.

sex toy is more a genre of porn than just an umbrella tag, but i don't get the argument umbrella tags should only be used for very similar things in the first place. tags are for searching, not for compiling immaculate catalog of visually similar items.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #1711 (forum #147735) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

If people are searching for sex_toy, we could create a tag that functions like legwear right?

Necroing this thread, sex toy is currently being used and it has no implication.

I personally would see the sex toy tag as quite useful, if you want to see an artwork with/without them without adding 5+ tags.

Mysterious_Uploader said:

Necroing this thread, sex toy is currently being used and it has no implication.

I personally would see the sex toy tag as quite useful, if you want to see an artwork with/without them without adding 5+ tags.

I agree with this. I'd rather have an umbrella tag too. As Rampardos said it would fit thematically, something doesn't have to be visually identical to fit in a taggable concept.

I´m in favor of this. It´s not the same to search for one single tag all the time with the tag-list or adding ~ ~ ~ to those, just to get a specific sex_toy, if you rather want alot of them at once (or just don´t care which one is used). Sex toy makes it more simple to add it for example on solo, 1girl or 1boy to an search, than to search for "Solo 1girl ~vibrator ~dildo ~etc ~etc". It´s also easier to purge it from your search, if you don´t want to have any sex_toy in the images you search for. Or searching for "Sex_toy -vibrator" to get ones you just don´t know and want to learn by searching, not reading.

On the other hand, we should talk about what Slime said:

less common masturbatory aids like sex dolls, penis pumps, or electrostim devices.

Guaro1238 said:

On the other hand, we should talk about what Slime said:

I think they are not by definition "toys", more like masturbation devices/aids? At least i wouldn't consider them one.

I would consider a sex toy "anything that can be held in one or two hands".

Yeah, things like penis pumps and electric stimulation devices are rarely sex "toys", and the same goes for full-size sex dolls.

BUR #3121 has been approved by @evazion.

I have recreated the BUR due to renewed interest in the topic of sex_toy implications and the fact that the previous BUR was only briefly discussed before timing out.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3121 (forum #170285) has been approved by @evazion.

Mysterious_Uploader said:

I think they are not by definition "toys", more like masturbation devices/aids? At least i wouldn't consider them one.

I would consider a sex toy "anything that can be held in one or two hands".

nonamethanks said:

Yeah, things like penis pumps and electric stimulation devices are rarely sex "toys", and the same goes for full-size sex dolls.

I agree with this. They are sex "toys", after all, not machines.

I support a sex toy umbrella tag, as it also makes it easier for most users who can only search two tags at once.

As far as an idea discussed briefly in the first post of this thread, a vibrator_under_clothes -> vibrator implication, I don't think that's a bad idea really, or is at least worth thinking about.

Is actual presence of such a toy not important too? I'm imagining someone searching vibrator and I don't see them being disappointed to see a vibrator in use but not directly visible. Public exhibitionist use of a vibrator or the device not being visible but clearly being used internally seem like usage worthy of being tagged as vibrator. As @AngryZapdos points out, remote control vibrator implies vibrator, so if actual visual presence of a vibrator is required, that implication should be removed since the control apparatus can be visible while the actual vibrator is out of sight. However another active implication is vibrator under panties to vibrator—this has greatly inflated tagging of vibrator on posts without direct visual presence, so to enforce the view that visual presence is required, that implication will need to be removed along with a re-tagging effort.

Thread where the vibrator_under_panties -> vibrator implication was approved - topic #7083

I think that tagging for the usage/effect of a vibrator is just as valid as when one is visually present, and that it's definitely in line with "Tag what you see."

We also have vibrator bulge. In my view this is too narrow. A bulge of a buttplug, dildo, etc. will be typically visually the same, and to that end I think the tag should be aliased to "sex_toy_bulge," or, perhaps "sex_toy_outline," as don't have _bulge tags for butt plugs or dildos, and it wouldn't really be useful for them to be separate anyway.

If either of these warrant a separate thread we can direct conversation to another.

The bulk update request #3121 (forum #170285) has been approved by @evazion.