natartnat said:
is there something like "female fucus"? << i found male_focus but no female focus. for posts #2220019
ps. i'm try to fix my past tagging mistake.
It is already tagged with solo_focus . So it looks tagged just fine.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Provence said:
It is already tagged with solo_focus . So it looks tagged just fine.
Then my questions are why we have only male_focus and did not have female_focus? and is the male_focus is sub-categorie of solo_focus ?
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
natartnat said:
Then my questions are why we have only male_focus and did not have female_focus? and is the male_focus is sub-categorie of solo_focus ?
We have this tag because posts with an overwhelming presence of males or males only is just rare. And no, male focus is something different. But solo focus and male focus are not mutually exclusive. Anyway, this post is NOW correctly tagged.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Virtually all posts on Danbooru are female focused. Female focus isn't tagged because it wouldn't be useful to do so.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
evazion said:
Virtually all posts on Danbooru are female focused. Female focus isn't tagged because it wouldn't be useful to do so.
Well, one could search with -male_focus if one really wants to.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Many thanks for fixing my mess.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Provence said:
Well, one could search with -male_focus if one really wants to.
While that won't only give you female focus posts because of group pictures and such, it's not hard at all to find female focused picture on almost any tag.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
The night-wear in post #2749513
The lower part looks like the typical babydoll, but I've never seen a fully-solid top complete with collar on a babydoll.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
CodeKyuubi said:
The night-wear in post #2749513
The lower part looks like the typical babydoll, but I've never seen a fully-solid top complete with collar on a babydoll.
Perhaps it's a just a variant? ______________________
post #2745806 looks like a painted bikini (the string from the bikini bottom looks mysteriously flat). My question is do the regular clothing tags apply? e.g. criss-cross halter , side-tie bikini etc.
Edit: Now looking at the rest of the picture maybe it's just the artist's style...
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
chinatsu said:
How should torn over-kneehighs be tagged? There is a torn thighhighs but no torn over-kneehighs one.
You mean post #2750407 ? Just (torn)_thighhighs. I think that would be too specific (over-kneehighs is already rarely used).
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Provence said:
You mean post #2750407 ? Just (torn)_thighhighs. I think that would be too specific (over-kneehighs is already rarely used).
So if the distinction is such that it doesn't matter here, why have over-kneehighs to begin with?
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
chinatsu said:
So if the distinction is such that it doesn't matter here, why have over-kneehighs to begin with?
That's a really good question. I actually don't see much sense in this tag.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
They look consistently fluffy and there are no wires to be seen.
I'd go with muffs.
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago
Updated by DanbooruBot over 1 year ago