imply internal_cumshot -> cum

BUR #7267 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication internal_cumshot -> ejaculation

Cum must be visible for it to be an internal cumshot, surely?

What if a robo-man is fucking the girl and he ejaculates oil?

AngryZapdos said:

What if a robo-man is fucking the girl and he ejaculates oil?

Isn't it an internal oilshot then? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Right now we have two images of an robot/android-thing fucking a girl with an internal cumshot, but both are depicted with cum.

AngryZapdos said:

What if a robo-man is fucking the girl and he ejaculates oil?

How would you even tell it's oil and not colored cum in that case?
If we follow that absurd logic then things like projectile cum cannot imply cum either.

nonamethanks said:

How would you even tell it's oil and not colored cum in that case?
If we follow that absurd logic then things like projectile cum cannot imply cum either.

Absurd logic is logic nonetheless; all I've done is outline a scenario in which this implication would cause mistags. An artist could draw someone ejaculating anything - while 99.99999% of these posts will feature cum, there may be these odd-one-out scenarios.

Instead of oil, imagine a futanari monster girl based on a fish is ejaculating fish eggs rather than semen. This scenario is disgusting feasible and it features an internal ejaculation that lacks cum. The question then becomes whether or not that counts as a "cumshot", but we must also keep in mind the fact that it still fits the theme of the tag and one would expect to see it in a search for internal_cumshot.

I would support an implication of internal_cumshot -> ejaculation, but that already implies cum.

We solved that issue with facial by creating simulated facial. The same can be done for hypotetical internal cumshots not made of cum.

That's a decent counterargument. I'm fine with such a solution.

However, I do think you should edit the BUR so that it implies ejaculation rather than cum. It's more specific, just as applicable and implies cum itself.

Yeah, that's true. Changed.

The bulk update request #7267 (forum #196979) has been approved by @evazion.

BUR #7348 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

remove implication internal_cumshot -> ejaculation
create implication internal_cumshot -> cum

I actually found a few examples that are not ejaculations: post #4597413, post #4584972, post #4206914, the original BUR was the right one.

internal cumshot has cum in uterus aliased to it, and it's a generalized "cum inside" tag I guess, so it's not always ejaculation. See also topic #19434.

I'll clean the mistags myself.

The bulk update request #7348 (forum #197339) has been approved by @nonamethanks.