create implication stealth_sex -> sex

Link to implication

The sex tag is defined very narrowly and is limited only to vaginal or anal intercourse. By contrast, stealth sex appears to be inclusive of other sexual acts, such as footjobs or cunnilingus. In order to make this implication work, one of two things would have to happen:

• Redefine sex to encompass all sexual activities not limited to one person. As pointed out in forum #94091, this would entail a massive retagging effort and would basically reduce the tag to a rating:e -solo search.
• Limit stealth sex to only those situations that could be tagged sex. This would leave us with no tag for other sorts of surreptitious sex acts. We could make up new tags, but forum #97615 highlights the problem with this approach.

I'm not sure that this implication would be worth the downsides of either option.

iridescent_slime said:

The sex tag is defined very narrowly and is limited only to vaginal or anal intercourse. By contrast, stealth sex appears to be inclusive of other sexual acts, such as footjobs or cunnilingus. In order to make this implication work, one of two things would have to happen:

• Redefine sex to encompass all sexual activities not limited to one person. As pointed out in forum #94091, this would entail a massive retagging effort and would basically reduce the tag to a rating:e -solo search.
• Limit stealth sex to only those situations that could be tagged sex. This would leave us with no tag for other sorts of surreptitious sex acts. We could make up new tags, but forum #97615 highlights the problem with this approach.

I'm not sure that this implication would be worth the downsides of either option.

In this case I'd be for redefining the sex tag since sex is more then just sexual intercourse...even in daily language. And why would this be reduce the usage of the than the rating e + -solo? Sex is indeed a thing that is done mutual (most of the time if one count masturbation in. I don't see the argument here.
And why would this be such a big tagging effort? Just do an cunnilingus -sex (for example) search and add the sex tag. Would be that much of an effort with the tag script function.

Is it worth the trouble of redefining the sex tag (with over 55000 entries) just to make this implication fit? As albert pointed out in forum #111232 the point of implications is not to create a neat hierarchy, but to make searching easier. The way it stands, sex is defined as "sexual intercourse", while the sex in stealth sex is "any sexual act". It is inelegant, but functional.

-1

The tag implication stealth_sex -> sex has been rejected.