I’m not happy yet, because I still had to add Implied Foalcon again.

@Background Pony Number 17  
Obvious implied sex here:
 

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from watching this fandom, it’s that EVERYTHING is “implied sex.”

@roiled_foil  
The show can certainly have innuendo, but i doubt the creators would imply sex between two very underage children.

@roiled_foil  
No, that’s what the “out of context” tag is for. It’d only be implied sex if it was intended to be implied.

@Zharkaer  
The expression on Chickun’s face, along with Sweetie Bell’s position over her like that, does imply sex tho

@roiled_foil  
I don’t know why “out of context” was removed, but “implied sex” was removed because there isn’t actually any implication of sex.

@Zharkaer  
You and the staff seem to think that the show cannot have innuendo since it is rated as a kids show. This is blatantly wrong, however. Think about the time RD pulled back the covers off of Fluttershy. She looked down, covered herself with her hooves, and blushed. That was obviously innuendo. The show therefore does have times where it implies adult situations.
 
And as for macros, that’s the most retarded thing I’ve heard in a long time. It takes me spelling it out in bold letters covering the image, to represent what the image already captures? Neither you nor the staff seem to have even a cursory knowledge of memetics. “out of context” and “implied sex” should be tagged on the original image, because that’s what the image conveys. Why is it okay to tag image macros with “implied sex” when it explicitly states it in text, but not tag the original image with it when it is what actually implies sex?
 
I’m not trying to insult anyone personally here.

>are you happy now?  
If you’ve finally learned how to tag screencaps correctly, then yes.