The bulk update request #1011 is active.

remove implication imminent_knotting (133) -> imminent_sex (1901)

Reason: Not sure how this implication got made in the first place, but if knotting is imminent, there already has to be sex, ergo the sex is not imminent. Example: post #104414

EDIT: The bulk update request #1011 (forum #5974) has been approved by @Jelloponies.

jerdude002 said:
The bulk update request #1011 is active.

remove implication imminent_knotting (133) -> imminent_sex (1901)

Reason: Not sure how this alias got made in the first place, but if knotting is imminent, there already has to be sex, ergo the sex is not imminent. Example: post #104414

I disagree. Because images are static, *_imminent tags are problematic. It's not TWYS, you have to deduce/interpret the image: You're either knotted or you're not, you're either having sex or you're not. I'd rather have imminent tags be invalidated.

kaleth said:
I disagree. Because images are static, *_imminent tags are problematic. It's not TWYS, you have to deduce/interpret the image: You're either knotted or you're not, you're either having sex or you're not. I'd rather have imminent tags be invalidated.

And I disagree with that.

Knotting in progress without having already been accomplished can be made visible in static imagery (like for example, it being partially in or 'knocking on the door' with clear intention, though I suppose the latter wouldn't strictly be TWYS-proof), and importantly, this can be something someone would wish to search for. People tend to find the halfway state pretty hot.

EDIT: Oh wait, we have seperate tags for knotting and knotted. Knotting would describe the partially in bit, then. Hmm, kay.

Anyway, yeah, the implication in question is complete nonsense.

The bulk update request #1011 (forum #5974) has been approved by @Jelloponies.