create implication facial -> cum (and fertilization -> ovum)

BUR #2470 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication facial -> cum
create implication fertilization -> ovum

Reason: facial:
Facials mean "cum on face", so there's cum in the picture if "facial" is tagged.
Also, many other "cum_on..." or "cum_in..." tags already imply "cum".

fertilization:
When fertilization is depicted, an egg cell is always shown. We have 434 pictures tagged fertilization but only 319 pictures are tagged ovum.

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

EDIT: The bulk update request #2470 (forum #165212) has been approved by @evazion.

Previous discussions: topic #5350, topic #12745
Seems the wiki for facial specifically says it's about cum now, but the arguments against this implication brought up in the mentioned topics were about the tag applying to posts where it's not clear something is cum (like the search facial suggestive_fluid -cum, eg post #1804662)

nonamethanks said:

...

Hmmm... Okay.

However, by that logic tags such as cum_on_body shouldn't imply cum either because posts like post #129621 exist (where it's not clear if the fluid is cum or not).

Also, the tag suggestive fluid itself already suggests it's not clear if the fluid is cum or not. If the fluid looks sexual but (clearly) is not sexual, such as post #1804662/post #3785317 (where the fluid is identified as a food, probably), tags suggesting actual semen is in the picture (such as facial) shouldn't be used, right?

I think the cum tags should be kept separate from the suggestive fluid tag, both the various cum_on* tags and the facial tag.

I can't support tagging cum and related tags on images that are pretty obviously intended to be melted ice cream or other types of food. post #129621 shouldn't have all those cum tags, both because that's almost certainly not cum, and they contradict with the presence of suggestive_fluid.

Implying facial to cum isn't great either, since it's not at all uncommon to use the term outside of explicitly sexual situations, and lots of artists depict facials using non-sexual fluids for the sake of humor, fan service, and censorship.

blindVigil said:

Implying facial to cum isn't great either, since it's not at all uncommon to use the term outside of explicitly sexual situations, and lots of artists depict facials using non-sexual fluids for the sake of humor, fan service, and censorship.

We do have in the face tag for those situations.

Unbreakable said:

We do have in the face tag for those situations.

That tag, at least if I'm interpreting the definition right, is for getting hit in the face, not for something just being on their face. Maybe people are just using it wrong, but facial is being used both for situations where the cum, or miscellaneous fluid, is landing on the face and situations where it's already on the face.

I don't think posts like post #129621 or post #3785317 would, or should, be tagged with in the face. I would tag them facial but others may disagree.

We have two options:

• Don't imply facial to cum. Use facial both for actual cum and for suggestive fluids.
• Imply facial to cum. Use simulated facial for non-cum facials (suggestive fluids or other sexually suggestive substances).

Simulated facial would be analogous to simulated fellatio / simulated paizuri, two tags I created a while ago for other simulated sex acts.

Note that there are only around 50 posts under facial suggestive_fluid -cum, the rest of facial -cum is things that should be tagged cum.

evazion said:

We have two options:

• Don't imply facial to cum. Use facial both for actual cum and for suggestive fluids.
• Imply facial to cum. Use simulated facial for non-cum facials (suggestive fluids or other sexually suggestive substances).

I would probably go with option 2 - I can see people wanting a tag for "facials" that don't contain actual cum. It would also makes it easier tagging actual facials because of the cum implication.

+1 for option 2

Another +1 for option 2

Unbreakable said:

Another +1 for option 2

evazion said:

Note that there are only around 50 posts under facial suggestive_fluid -cum, the rest of facial -cum is things that should be tagged cum.

I think most of those, going by the ruling in topic #5815, would be tagged cum.

jxh2154 said:

葉月 said: I hate the "every fluid present is certainly cum" meme, but if I'm looking for white_chocolate, I certainly don't want post #855067 to be returned, because it very clearly isn't white chocolate.

Agree here. Sometimes it's okay to just use our judgment and say "there's no frickin' way that's chocolate" and just tag it cum and move on.

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

The bulk update request #2470 (forum #165212) has been approved by @evazion.

Created simulated facial.