[APPROVED] Tag implication: vibrator_under_panties -> vibrator_under_clothes

create implication vibrator_under_panties -> vibrator_under_clothes

Link to implication

EDIT: The tag implication vibrator_under_panties -> vibrator_under_clothes (forum #142145) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

Note that we have a dildo under panties too. I wonder if these tags should be combined. A dildo can be a vibrator but tagging posts with vibrator under panties + dildo under panties seems excessive.

evazion said:

I wonder if these tags should be combined. A dildo can be a vibrator but tagging posts with vibrator under panties + dildo under panties seems excessive.

We could, hypothetically, use a parent tag as a catch-all for masturbatory sex toys. There actually already is a sex_toy tag, though it's very underpopulated at the moment. And then merge vibrator_under_clothes and vibrator_under_clothes under sex_toy_under_clothes.

The only problem would then be to define the definition of sex_toy. Egg vibrators, dildos, and artificial vaginas are of course sex toys, but what about things like nipple clamps and mouth gags. My initial guess would be to only include things used for masturbation purposes that are used in the genital area.

evazion said:

Note that we have a dildo under panties too. I wonder if these tags should be combined. A dildo can be a vibrator but tagging posts with vibrator under panties + dildo under panties seems excessive.

I disagree with conflating the dildo and vibrator tags. A dildo can be a vibrator, and a vibrator can be a dildo, but not all dildos are vibrators, and not all vibrators are dildos (ex: egg vibrators). A post should only be tagged with BOTH tags if whatever is under the panties happens to be a vibrating dildo, which is far from guaranteed.

Edit: I agree with the vibrator_under_panties -> vibrator_under_clothes implication though, of course.

The tag implication vibrator_under_panties -> vibrator_under_clothes (forum #142145) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.