Posted under Tags
I think panty peek should be for when a small amount of the panties are peeking out from under other clothing, which I would not personally see as pantyshot. Things like post #1827857 or post #2358236.
If we take that usage then what this tag needs is a bit of gardening to remove some mis-tagged pantyshots, not aliasing into pantyshot.
The first one doesn't even have a skirt or a dress, and in neither case is the visible part of the panties underneath any clothing at all.
Panty peek = panties sticking out of the clothes
pantyshot = seeing the panties under the clothes
There isn't even any overlap between the two things (although it is possible to get both in the same image).
kuuderes_shadow said:
The first one doesn't even have a skirt or a dress, and in neither case is the visible part of the panties underneath any clothing at all.
Panty peek = panties sticking out of the clothes
pantyshot = seeing the panties under the clothesThere isn't even any overlap between the two things (although it is possible to get both in the same image).
I agree. Panty_peek and pantyshot should stay separate.
kuuderes_shadow said:
The first one doesn't even have a skirt or a dress, and in neither case is the visible part of the panties underneath any clothing at all.
Panty peek = panties sticking out of the clothes
pantyshot = seeing the panties under the clothes
Then how about altering this tag? We have upshorts as well as a tag.
And honestly: What purpose do these tags serve? The purpose is that both tags indicate that there is the panty visible. The create a seperation there isn't logical and pragmatic.
You have two tags expressing the exact same thing. To say "there are shorts, so no pantyshot" isn't convincing in my eyes.
And "peeking out" isn't a good excuse either, since it's an "accidental view" of the panties then. Even more than just having a view from below.
I agree with altering the pantyshot wiki to allow for pantyshots under shorts, yes. That was more to point out the absurdity of the claim that they fit perfectly under what you had just quoted.
I do not agree with editing the pantyshot tag to allow for when the panties being viewed are not underneath other clothes, though.
kuuderes_shadow said:
I do not agree with editing the pantyshot tag to allow for when the panties being viewed are not underneath other clothes, though.
That's getting interesting, though.
May I ask why you think this is important?
post #2409121 for example: she wears no skirt/dress. Only a sweater that don't cover the panties in this position.
Provence said:
Then how about altering this tag? We have upshorts as well as a tag.
And honestly: What purpose do these tags serve? The purpose is that both tags indicate that there is the panty visible. The create a seperation there isn't logical and pragmatic.
You have two tags expressing the exact same thing. To say "there are shorts, so no pantyshot" isn't convincing in my eyes.
And "peeking out" isn't a good excuse either, since it's an "accidental view" of the panties then. Even more than just having a view from below.
post #1398497: pantyshot and panty_peek (Why also panty_peek? Because there is only very limited panty exposure.)
post #2407419: pantyshot
post #1827857: panty_peek
I'll extend @kuuderes_shadow 's distinction a little bit:
Panty peek = panties sticking out of the clothes (Can be accidental or by design. Additionally, the panty exposure should be limited.)
Pantyshot = seeing the panties under the clothes (Always accidental)
Updated
There is some gray area overlap between the two, but there is also areas that clearly belong into one category and not the other. Panty peek should cover minor exposure of the panties from underneath clothing, particularly clothing that doesn't have large openings at the bottom like skirts or only wearing a shirt with no bottom. It also shouldn't cover larger exposure, particularly of the crotch and rear, like in post #2410240 and post #2404574.
Clearly panty peek: post #2321800, post #2408422, post #2057345, post #2408421
Clearly Pantyshot: post #2404574, post #2402434, post #2352886
Somewhat gray area: post #2405786 (panty_peek imo), post #2284191 (pantyshot imo)
Provence said:
kuuderes_shadow said:
I do not agree with editing the pantyshot tag to allow for when the panties being viewed are not underneath other clothes, though.
May I ask why you think this is important?
Because a pantyshot is especially appealing for most people solely because it happens accidentally or in a sneaky kind of way.
People who just want to see girls in panties should use the panties tag.
Provence said:
post #2409121 for example: she wears no skirt/dress. Only a sweater that don't cover the panties in this position.
This looks borderline pantyshot to me. If a girl runs around wearing only a long sweater, she must be effectively begging for some good pantie exposure.
Updated
Looking a little over the tag usage, and the lack of a Wiki entry, I can see why there might be some confusion.
In my view, panty peek involves the waist or leg band of the panties peeking out from a position where normally given most circumstances they should not be visible. If POV plays a role in the visibility of the panties, then it doesn't count. It is almost in essence like wardrobe malfunction, though not to the same degree.
Some example situations...
Provence said:
And honestly: What purpose do these tags serve? The purpose is that both tags indicate that there is the panty visible.
No, the panties tag indicates that panties are visible. The point of pantyshot and panty peek is to specify the reason they are visible. If panties are visible because of a convenient viewing angle, it's a pantyshot. If a portion of the panties are simply sticking out of one's outerwear, it's panty peek.
reiyasona said:
Panty peek = panties sticking out of the clothes (Can be accidental or by design. Additionally, the panty exposure should be limited.)
Pantyshot = seeing the panties under the clothes (Always accidental)
I think that a key distinction here isn't how much of the panties are visible; it's that in the case of pantyshot, the panties are all that's covering the wearer's private areas. There's an expectation that if the character weren't wearing panties, the image would be pushed into rating:explicit territory. With panty peek, this isn't the case. The panties merely protrude through leg hole or above the waistband of an outer garment, and even if the character weren't wearing panties, you still wouldn't be able to see anything.
Because skirts and dresses don't cover each leg separately, there will almost always be a view angle at which the wearer's crotch and/or buttocks can be seen beneath a short hemline (i.e., upskirt). If panties can be seen from this angle, that's a pantyshot. The same goes for loose-fitting shorts where the wearer's nether regions can be viewed through the leg holes (upshorts), and I think most people would accept amending the pantyshot wiki to be inclusive of this as well.
A panty peek, in my opinion, has little to do with viewing angles. It's just a situation in which underwear slips out and can be seen, much like when a bra strap hangs out of a character's shirt. There is an expectation that panties shouldn't normally be exposed (whale tail notwithstanding), and a panty peek is like a minor wardrobe error in that regard.
Why confusion? There is no confusion since here is a grey area like Renim mentioned. So there might be reasons for one thing or the other.
By panty peek, the panties are visible, by panty peek, too.
Is it accidental in both ways? Yes, since panties sticking out of buruma isn't really wanted by the one who wears it.
And there are already "borderline cases" where no skirt/dress/short/buruma/whatever is visible, i.e a garment that is meant to cover to panties underneath it.
There is no real difference, but if you mean that "not being underneath" is so important, ok. I don't really see a difference here since the panties are always under a garment with panty peek and is only visible a little bit. The last part also applies to pantyshot and the thing of both tags are that viewing the panties is accidental.
@iridescent slime
Wrong, because pantyshot implies panties. But you're still right, since also why you view them, i.e. it's both.
And sticking out of them...like I said no real difference but if you don't like the alias, why not an implication? Panty peek is like a special pantyshot, since the sticking out part isn't here for every pantyshot, but the other things are still the same .
Updated
Panty peek should imply panties. It probably doesn't because nobody has gotten around to it yet.
create implication panty_peek -> panties
I threw up a rough first draft for the wiki (panty peek). Please feel free to look it over and edit it or comment on it as necessary.
BrokenEagle98 said:
I threw up a rough first draft for the wiki (panty peek). Please feel free to look it over and edit it or comment on it as necessary.
Going to disagree with having that POV clause, because I'd never agree that something like post #2408421 is a pantyshot.
