i've stubled over post #266656 and wondered if there were more pics on topic so i did a tag search and came across "armpit_sex" which has IIRC 11 entries. i wasn't sure if that was all there was on the topic, so i did a joint search of "armpits" and "cum" and came across pictures of the similar catagory. so i was wondering should all the pictures with cum under the armpits be tagged as "armpit_sex" or should there be a new tag in the case of post #251960 where the is no penis to implicate that sex occurred under the armpits and could have just been the setting of ejaculation.

Since all the current images with armpit_sex have a penis present, I'd go with that it is one of the defining characteristics of the tag.

Personally for me I'd label something armpit_sex only if the penis was stuck in the armpit in someway.

If it is just cum on the armpits you could go with a tag like "cum_on_armpits" or something. IMO one of the advantages of a tag like that is that you can also use it in conjunction with armpit_sex, since not all armpit_sex images have cum on the armpits. It would be kind of like how not all paizuri images have cum_on_breasts.

Objectively, armpit_sex is post #223130 or any other where the armpit is grappled around a penis in a 'masturbative' manner. Like a blowjob, the active party isn't necessarily the woman: post #266883.

That being said, I'm all for a wider proliferation of "cum_on_..." and "cum_in_..." tags like cum_on_ass (not in), cum_on_belly, cum_on_leg or thigh, cum_on_back, cum_on_armpit, cum_on_hands, cum_on_neck, etc.

As it stands, these kinds of tags are crimminally underused.