Tag dicussion: between_legs, between_thighs

The wiki for between_thighs says the tag is for objects held between the thighs, and that between_legs should be used when a whole person is in this position. However, going through each tag, it seems that they're just both used in the same way, according to the between_thighs wiki entry. So it's unnecessary to have both of them serving the same function.

Between_legs currently has 65 pages of posts versus 35 pages for between_thighs. And there are only 3 pages worth of posts tagged with both of them. Between_legs also has three tags that implicate it: hand_between_legs, tail_between_legs, and cat_between_legs. Considering this, I think it's best to just merge the two tags with between_thighs aliased to between_legs. Unless we really need a tag for someone between another person's legs (and I would suggest making a new tag for that anyway, as it would cause less confusion).

What do the higher-ups think?

Bumping with a TL;DR:

Both tags are being used the same way, and between_legs has more posts as well as three tags that implicate to it.

Suggesting create alias between_thighs -> between_legs

As far as I can tell, between_legs implications are the exact reason why this tag is so much larger than between_thighs and why it appears to be used in the same way. Said implications were created after forum #69296 and the person that proposed them is known for his thoughtless actions and ideas. Although, I'm also to be blamed for not noticing this even though I did participate in that thread.

But anyway, between_legs is a rather ambiguous tag name so it probably won't be a bad idea to repurpose it like you suggested. We can create person_between_legs or something like that for the other mentioned situation.

Basically, +1 to the alias.

Alias makes sense to me to - between legs should simply mean something or someone is located/held between a set of legs.

But it's 700 posts we'd be aliasing away so I'll see if anyone else wants to chime in.

What's with this :3? This looks that this "discussion" is still unsolved.