Imply shibari -> bondage

BUR #20307 has been rejected.

create implication shibari -> bondage

Shibari is a form of bondage.

There are some examples of shibari being used on inanimate objects: Ex: post #840681, post #5596601. It was argued in the past that the tag should be in reference to the technique even outside of bondage situations.

Also some non-sexual usage as well: post #5402646.

I don't think tying rope just like one'd do when tying up a person for fetish reasons over a peach suddenly doesn't make it not bondage. I would tag all three of those examples as bondage, and bump up the last one's rating from G to S minimum.

Shibari technically refers to the technique of tying specifically with rope. I think it limits people searching for bondage specifically using rope if it combines automatically into Bondage.

grimmangel said:

Shibari technically refers to the technique of tying specifically with rope. I think it limits people searching for bondage specifically using rope if it combines automatically into Bondage.

This is an implication, not an alias.

We have two mutually exclusive tags for people (or other objects and entities) being restrained, bondage and tied up (nonsexual). One should be able to apply whichever one of these tags is appropriate to any given shibari post, so it shouldn't imply either.

7HS said:

We have two mutually exclusive tags for people (or other objects and entities) being restrained, bondage and tied up (nonsexual). One should be able to apply whichever one of these tags is appropriate to any given shibari post, so it shouldn't imply either.

Shibari on danbooru is for sexual rope bondage though.

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

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #20307 (forum #256122) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.