Posted under General
Why does this alias exist? There's a difference between breasts that are small and no breasts. I would consider post #609712 and post #609489 to be in the flat_chest category, but post #610114 and post #609342 are hardly flat. The two rules I would provide for determining between small and flat are 1) if you can cup your hand around it it's not flat, and 2) if you look at her from the side, if she's flat only her nipples should be sticking out.
Updated by jxh2154
Historically we have always tagged a-cup or so or lower as flat_chest, and that is in line with common usage of the term. This is described in the wiki. The line needs to be drawn somewhere, and no matter where the line is drawn there will be borderline cases.
post #610114 is like a b-cup or so, though.
I dunno. I guess I should give up on expecting a site that bans loli images from general users to respect my preferences.
I tend to think of it in these terms:
Flat, or close to it: flat_chest
Bigger than flat, smaller than their head: simply breasts, no further qualifiers
Around one head size: large_breasts
Bigger than large, up to and including two heads in size: huge_breasts
Larger than two heads in size: gigantic_breasts (likely candidates for deletion)
Keeping it relative helps reduce the argument factor.
I guess I should give up on expecting a site that bans loli images from general users to respect my preferences.
Try not to get so whiny about it. It's got absolutely nothing to do with your preferences.
I've been against this alias too, because of things like post #545905.
Eclipse5632 said:
The two rules I would provide for determining between small and flat are 1) if you can cup your hand around it it's not flat, and 2) if you look at her from the side, if she's flat only her nipples should be sticking out.
This.
sgcdonmai said:
Bigger than flat, smaller than their head: simply breasts, no further qualifiers
That's what I usually do to avoid polluting the flat_chest tag.
sgcdonmai said:
I tend to think of it in these terms:Flat, or close to it: flat_chest
Bigger than flat, smaller than their head: simply breasts, no further qualifiers
Around one head size: large_breasts
Bigger than large, up to and including two heads in size: huge_breasts
Larger than two heads in size: gigantic_breasts (likely candidates for deletion)Keeping it relative helps reduce the argument factor.
That's not a bad benchmark except that all posts with either of the latter three tags *also* get the breasts tag. There's no way for normal users to search for B-cups as you need at least 4 tags to search ("breasts -large_breasts -huge_breasts -gigantic_breasts" with maybe an additional "-flat_chest").
I can agree. I would argue for the equivalent of normal_breasts, except that I don't like how blah that makes them sound.
I think realistic_breasts might be sufficiently definable, but it doesn't quite work for me either.
average_breasts? Covers the majority of the sizes the tag would be applicable for well enough, though its application towards the lower boundary might be a bit questionable.
We already have enough [size]_breasts tags as it is, they're just weighted towards needless complexity in larger breasts.
I do see plenty of posts with flat_chest that are most certainly not flat, though, and I've removed it more than a few times. I don't know that adding yet another breast tag (and something so nebulous as "normal/average") really helps though.
