Donmai

[REJECTED] Tag implication: breast_grab -> breasts

Posted under Tags

Lolcatcat

create implication breast_grab -> breasts

Link to implication

(I've been around for a while, but I go through long bouts of inactivity, so I'm a bit behind-the-times)

Little backstory of my adventure:
I viewed a an which rightly included the breast_grab tag, but I noticed that it didn't have any other breast-related tags. Then out of curiosity I searched breast_grab -breasts and got tons of hits, which didn't make any sense to me. I then looked at the implications and saw that breast_grab only implied grabbing, so I did a forum search for "breast_grab" and found some discussion from 2 years ago. It seems that there was a request for breast_grab to implicate grabbing and breasts, but someone contended that was invalid, as small_breasts might be the only ones being grabbed (which sounds like nonsense to me). Now I see that breasts previously only meant medium-sized breasts, and one year ago medium_breasts took on that definition: [this bulk update from [The Breast Reformation Thread] (I had been 99.9% inactive for over a year so I didn't notice that change, but I have been using the medium_breasts tag these past several weeks - medium has always been a favorite size of mine and I'm glad that it's so specific now, albeit a little underpopulated compared the the ever-popular "large" ones).

My point of view:
Given the details of the "Breast Reformation" changes (/improvements), I think the breast_grab is very sufficient to imply breasts. I can understand that there might be some concern about images that are specifically referring to flat_chest wrongly receiving the breasts tag via this implication, and I too can see how that might be an issue in some cases. But in this case, the breast_grab wiki page very specifically states that it does not apply to the grabbing of a flat chest, so that wouldn't be a problem unless an image is incorrectly tagged to begin with (which is just an unfortunate nature of implications). Also, there is already a tag+implication flat_chest_grab -> flat_chest.

I think that's already a very good case for the implication, but just to throw some sprinkles on it: breast_rest, breast_hold, and breast_squeeze all already imply breasts, be they large or small - covered or exposed.

For now, I thought I'd just suggest this one implication and see how well-received it is, but there are some others tags that I think can have very similar cases made for them, given the somewhat-recent breast tag redefinitions. I noticed some while hopping wiki-descriptions; the two I still have open are between_breasts and paizuri (since paizuri should, I think, always refer to an action performed with at least small_breasts (i.e. definitely larger than flat_chest, otherwise the action would have to be naizuri), so it should be a sufficient condition). If this topic is agreed upon (or assuming I'm not missing some critical detail that invalidates this whole post), I'll make a bulk implication suggestion with the others that seem to follow the same/similar reasoning.

Sorry if this is a bit long for an implication request. But breasts are very serious business, you know. :)

EDIT: This tag implication has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The tag implication breast_grab -> breasts (forum #141226) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Updated by DanbooruBot

Reply
BrokenEagle98

-1 to this. The breasts aren't always shown. I can imagine multiple such scenarios.

The breasts tag normally means that they are noticeable and so the size should be determinable which isn't always possible with many posts.

Relevant conversation where this idea was rejected over 2 years ago (topic #12618).

The bottom line is, when searching the breasts tag, do you want to see breasts, or do you want to see a whole lot of maybe-sort-of-not-really breasts?

Reply
user 525419

BrokenEagle98 said:

-1 to this. The breasts aren't always shown. I can imagine multiple such scenarios.

The breasts tag normally means that they are noticeable and so the size should be determinable which isn't always possible with many posts.

Relevant conversation where this idea was rejected over 2 years ago (topic #12618).

The bottom line is, when searching the breasts tag, do you want to see breasts, or do you want to see a whole lot of maybe-sort-of-not-really breasts?

This idea wasn't rejected there.
The breast implication was ONLY removed because the implication from small_breasts to breasts did not exist back then.

Reply
BrokenEagle98

Provence said:

...

It doesn't matter for what reason, it was still rejected. You didn't even address any of my actual points either. Regardless even if you do, my mind is pretty much made up on this. I'll let others chime in on this now.

Reply
Lolcatcat

(@ BrokenEagle) I see what you're saying, and I welcome the criticism/feedback (It is just a suggestion after all), but I think your reasons are applicable to both tags in question, although that seems to me like a separate problem; not one that really involves the suggested implication.

BrokenEagle98 said:

-1 to this. The breasts aren't always shown. . . I can imagine multiple such scenarios.

Personally, I think it's fair to say that an action that can be described as "breast-grabbing" is still an action that draws attention to the presence of a breast, meaning it's still an element of the viewing (I think that it very usually the case that you CAN clearly see a lot of the details, but we can still address the cases where visual detail is scarce). Some of the tags I mentioned above, like breast_rest (post #2393112) or breast_hold (post #2447400) aren't revealing any cleavage or anything; they're just clothed women (that first one I'll admit is a bit spandex-y). But the actions are pretty obvious, and they direct the viewer to the (presence of?) breasts of some character in the image/scene. If we were certain that there was no meaningful breast involvement going on, then we wouldn't have any need for those other tags either.

In the image you referenced, I think that's extremely inaccurately tagged. It's one thing for the breast to be concealed, but in that image we also can't see where her hand is, nor is there any shape or gesture to suggest what her hand is doing. It also doesn't look like it could reach. Maybe an imaginative viewer could see that as a breast grab, but I think they would have to shun their knowledge of human appendages, or interpret the girl to be some kind of Hand-Sasquatch.

BrokenEagle98 said:
The breasts tag normally means that they are noticeable and so the size should be determinable which isn't always possible with many posts.

The first sentence of the breasts wiki page does say they should be "noticeable", but I think that statement by itself is somewhat ambiguous; the followup clause rephrases that, probably to clarify: "i.e. you should not use this tag to describe a flat-chested girl." So for a really hardcore literal analysis (if we want to take that approach), the intended use of the tag should be interpreted as a union of those statements, such as "...with noticeable volume".
You also say "... so the size should be determinable" (which is a reasonable thing to think) - The wiki page says that you can use the tag even when the size is not known - I take this to mean that they simply need to "be there".

That first post does borderline look like grabbing, but it's pretty unclear. If anything, I think it could be tagged with flat_chest_grab but that's another issue entirely.

That second one, to me, looks perfectly fine for both tags, for reasons I've said above (post is getting longer than I expected so I'm copping out).

BrokenEagle98 said:
Relevant conversation where this idea was rejected over 2 years ago (topic #12618).

That is in fact the 2-year-old discussion I mentioned earlier. I provided a later forum link but I failed to link directly to that one; sorry. I do agree that it is relevant. However, like I said in the top post, the very specific reason that part of the suggestion was then withdrawn is no longer an issue, so I view it as a good reason to try again now, since the tags are in much better agreement thanks to their re-definitions.

BrokenEagle98 said:
The bottom line is, when searching the breasts tag, do you want to see breasts, or do you want to see a whole lot of maybe-sort-of-not-really breasts?

That's definitely something to consider, but I think searching "breasts" by itself is bound to give all sorts of surprises, and there are a lot of other helpful tags to narrow down the results for various sorts of explicit visual portrayals of them (+nipples, +topless, even +futa) or that can even replace "breasts" as a search term (cleavage, downblouse, sideboob). I think it would be a much bigger inconvenience to require the word to exclude normally-clothed or obscured breasts even if they are specifically relevant to the scene.

I don't think it's ever going to be a perfect system, and you're right that there are some borderline cases where breasts are not visible, but I think that if you're willing to accept that there is breast-grabbing (which you don't always have to), then you should also be willing to accept that there must be a breast there. I also think that, although justifiable, those cases are very few; the vast majority of the time you can see the shape/volume/entirety of the breasts being grabbed, and the suggested implication allows for those images to be found via various breast-related combination-searches (right now there appear to be thousands of breast_grab -breasts results, mostly with very visible interaction, and that's just for this one tag - it's not just a tiny problem with a couple hundred posts)

Also, Happy New Year!

Updated

Reply
Lolcatcat

Oniichanyan said:

breast grabs don't need to implicate breasts:post #2955377

There seems to be a fair amount of opinion that breasts requires exposed breasts. I've never thought it if this way personally. I've always just included the tag to find *something* to be happening with breasts, usually with various other tags. When the element of breasts is covered by one of those tags already, I leave out the base tag.

Here's another way of framing my view in a roundabout sort of way (it might not be perfect, but I think it covers all the bases). Based on the post you provided and which you agree is a breast grab:
1. A breast_grab is mutually exclusive to a flat_chest_grab (by definition)

2. post #2955377 exemplifies a breast_grab (We seem to agree that this fulfills the definition)

3. IF (hypothetically) it were instead a flat_chest_grab, it would also be tagged with flat_chest (This implication already exists)

4. To claim that it's a breast grab, we have to distinguish that the breasts are some (any) size larger than a flat_chest

5. Since we are forced to make that size distinction in order to use the tag at all, then we can apply the appropriately sized tag (since we've literally just identified some sufficient breast size)

6. If we can be specific, we would then use a specific size, e.g. medium_breasts, which by definition will imply breasts anyway (So we've indirectly implied the tag based on all of the other relevant tag definitions)

7. If, hypothetically, we can't be specific about a particular size, but we have still confirmed that it is not a flat_chest_grab, then for consistency, we substitute the "catch-all" tag breasts (the wiki says to use it this way) and then we've indirectly implied it again.

It might well be that the community wants to rework the breasts tag again to NOT be implied by breast sizes, and to instead be defined as something like "(partially?) exposed breasts", but from what I can tell based on the way everything is currently defined and implied, you can't really logically get around breast_grab requiring simply a non-flat breast.

Reply
1