UNofficial implication thread

There’s no official thread for implication requests, but there’s no harm in making this one for now, right? I’ll use an arrow to mean “implies”.

Upd: when I think about it, I’m not sure I understand how major tags like “boy”, “cub”, etc. are meant to be used here, when considering the character’s species, physical appearance, anthropomorphism level and canonical age (last part mainly concerns copyrighted characters) @_@

open smile —> open mouth, smiling
twink —> male
shotacon —> boy
lolicon —> girl, human
pokemon (species), digimon (species) —> fictional species
I noticed “pokemon” and “pokemon (species)” are aliased, however this means that human-only pictures fall under the aliased tag if there’s a human from the Pokemon series and no actual Pokemon… does that make sense?
wagging tail, tail grab —> tail
huge balls —> balls
pantyhose, tights, socks, stockings, thigh highs, knee highs, leg warmers —> legwear
jeans —> pants
jorts —> shorts
any hat related tag (I know these: beanie, flat cap, cowboy hat, sombrero, beret) —> hat
any piercing related tag (I know these: ear piercing, ring piercing, nipple piercing, navel piercing, genital piercing, penis piercing) —> piercing

I noticed something odd with the way implications work.

So “kid” has this explanation: A human shota or loli. For cubs, don’t use this tag. Okay.
BUT, it’s implied by “solo kid”, which is implied by “solo boy”. However “boy” has the explanation A young/cute looking male. No mention of species here, and we already have “shotacon” for young human males… So here we have this situation where adding the species-neutral “solo boy” adds “solo kid” and “kid”, even though those are meant for humans only… Right?