Pectoral_grab implications

BUR #3391 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication pectoral_grab -> grabbing

For consistency with the breast tags and easier tagging overall.

I was wondering if we could also do:

create implication pectoral_grab -> pectorals

or

create implication pectoral_grab -> chest

But looking into older discussions, in topic #14846 something similar for breasts was rejected... So I would like more thoughts about this.

To be more specific, what is the difference between the chest and pectorals tag on Danbooru? And which is the breasts equivalent?

EDIT: The bulk update request #3391 (forum #172277) has been approved by @evazion.

CuteBara said:

To be more specific, what is the difference between the chest and pectorals tag on Danbooru? And which is the breasts equivalent?

Well, looking at their wikis, chest is the counterpart to breasts, simply intended to be used to tag that area of the body for males; emphasis isn't necessary. Pectorals is for use when the chest of a present male is either the focus or emphasized, in the same way you would use thighs.

blindVigil said:

Well, looking at their wikis, chest is the counterpart to breasts, simply intended to be used to tag that area of the body for males; emphasis isn't necessary. Pectorals is for use when the chest of a present male is either the focus or emphasized, in the same way you would use thighs.

I'm still wondering which one to use for covered or shirtless pecs. I always assumed the pectorals tag required skin showing because it can be used like cleavage. Maybe we could make that a little clearer in the wiki?

Anyhow would that mean this

create implication pectoral_grab -> chest

is the way to go or is this implication not correct?

CuteBara said:

I'm still wondering which one to use for covered or shirtless pecs. I always assumed the pectorals tag required skin showing because it can be used like cleavage. Maybe we could make that a little clearer in the wiki?

I can't be 100% certain since I didn't make the tags, but my understanding is that chest, like breasts, can be used regardless of whether the character's chest is covered. It just needs to be sufficiently visible. The "often exposed" bit in the wiki I assume is simply referring to the fact that unless the male is sufficiently muscular or wearing tight fitting clothing, covered male chests aren't prominent enough to be worth tagging in many cases.

Pectorals, as far as I can tell looking at the oldest posts, also isn't limited to covered or uncovered chests. The line about cleavage, as I interpret it, is simply saying that if a male is wearing "cleavage revealing clothes", like post #1192738, then pectorals should be used instead of cleavage. Otherwise pectorals is for when a male chest is emphasized or a primary focal point, regardless of it being covered or not.

I thought about it some more. Do we actually need both of these tags? At least as far as their current use goes, the two are nearly redundant.

If chest is meant to be the male counterpart to breasts, then just like breasts it should be for any visibly distinct male chest, whether clothed or not. This means all posts tagged with pectorals should also be tagged chest. Chest is also vague as a name, men and women both have chests. Using the term exclusively for males is silly, even if it hasn't caused any problems yet.

Pectorals under its current usage is completely redundant. There's no need for a tag specifically for shirtless males, because shirtless already exists for that exact purpose. It's not needed for muscular males either because muscle already exists.

I suggest chest be replaced by pectorals, to make it more readily apparent as the male counterpart to breasts, and pectoral focus should be made as a proper counterpart to breast focus, since that's what pectorals was seemingly intended for to begin with.

blindVigil said:
Chest is also vague as a name, men and women both have chests. Using the term exclusively for males is silly, even if it hasn't caused any problems yet.

This is a good argument even without the inclusion of the treasure_chest confusion that I definitely went through.

blindVigil said:
----

I agree and I like your suggestions. The intention of this discussion was to lead up to that, but I wasn't able to word as well as I hoped.

Regardless of that, I feel like this topic deserves it's own thread. Most users probably didn't expect this kind of discussion to end up here and that's my fault.

I'll be making a new thread for the topic as soon as possible to discuss it with everyone else.

The bulk update request #3391 (forum #172277) has been approved by @evazion.

blindVigil said:

I thought about it some more. Do we actually need both of these tags? At least as far as their current use goes, the two are nearly redundant.

If chest is meant to be the male counterpart to breasts, then just like breasts it should be for any visibly distinct male chest, whether clothed or not. This means all posts tagged with pectorals should also be tagged chest. Chest is also vague as a name, men and women both have chests. Using the term exclusively for males is silly, even if it hasn't caused any problems yet.

Pectorals under its current usage is completely redundant. There's no need for a tag specifically for shirtless males, because shirtless already exists for that exact purpose. It's not needed for muscular males either because muscle already exists.

I suggest chest be replaced by pectorals, to make it more readily apparent as the male counterpart to breasts, and pectoral focus should be made as a proper counterpart to breast focus, since that's what pectorals was seemingly intended for to begin with.

I pretty much agree with this, between chest, bare chest, shirtless, and pectorals, we have too many tags describing the almost the same thing.

evazion said:

I pretty much agree with this, between chest, bare chest, shirtless, and pectorals, we have too many tags describing the almost the same thing.

I opened a discussion about it in topic #17337