Tag implication: facial -> cum_on_upper_body

create implication facial -> cum_on_upper_body

Link to implication

Cum on someone's face.

:]

When I want to search cum on upper body, I want to see cum on not only the face, but also on the torso. I don't think this implication would work.

Well, cum_on_breasts do also imply that cum is on the upper part of the body.
So, this would close a gap.

That makes sense since breasts are part of the torso. The face however is part of the head, which is more separate from the torso and arms.

Well, we can nuke this, but an implication has to be made since this tag doesn't imply cum.

The tag implication facial -> cum_on_upper_body has been rejected.

create implication facial -> cum

Link to request

Markgraf said:

create implication facial -> cum

Link to request

-1

There are times when a facial does NOT contain cum, e.g. post #68585

Kikimaru said:

-1

There are times when a facial does NOT contain cum, e.g. post #68585

Then this is not facial (maybe in the face or such things instead)^^.
Look at the aliases to facial: cum_on_face.

Kikimaru said:

-1

There are times when a facial does NOT contain cum, e.g. post #68585

You just reminded me of post #2208679, which has a facial in a sexual way but the liquid isn't exactly cum.

Markgraf said:

Then this is not facial (maybe in the face or such things instead)^^.
Look at the aliases to facial: cum_on_face.

Alias doesn't have to mean that the term a tag is aliased to equals the same 100% identical meaning. There are plenty of cases where the tag is aliased to another because the other tag subsumes the concept.

NWF_Renim said:

Alias doesn't have to mean that the term a tag is aliased to equals the same 100% identical meaning. There are plenty of cases where the tag is aliased to another because the other tag subsumes the concept.

Then why was this alias created in the first place?
And even the all mighty wiki page defines it as such. But here it is not?

Markgraf said:

Then why was this alias created in the first place?
And even the all mighty wiki page defines it as such. But here it is not?

The most common form of facial is going to use cum, so cum_on_face -> facial makes sense. As it's not like the other cum_on_* named tags, having an alias of cum_on_face is to prevent a redundant tag from being created by users not realizing there is a facial tag.

The wiki for the most part was written quite a long time ago and not really updated, but the term "cum" wasn't added until 2011 and before that simply stated "ejaculating on someone's face." With that wording, one could ask if they only meant then male ejaculation or if female ejaculation also counts. If female ejaculation counted, then that'd mean that it wasn't guaranteed that cum would be the only fluid then on the person's face.

The bulk update request #669 has been rejected.