Donmai

stained/wet panties

Posted under Tags

SenpaiGalaxy

As the wikis state, The stained panties tag means something got on them creating a stain, now usually it is because of pee, but that's not always the case. -- (This isn't an exact quote from the wiki) --

However Stained Panties aren't wet most of the time. So for this it'll be just best to add two tags if they both happen within a photo.

Reply
CoreMack

SexyCircusBaby said:

As the wikis state, The stained panties tag means something got on them creating a stain, now usually it is because of pee, but that's not always the case. -- (This isn't an exact quote from the wiki) --

However Stained Panties aren't wet most of the time. So for this it'll be just best to add two tags if they both happen within a photo.

stained_panties: "Panties with a stain on them. Can be due to peeing oneself or a pussy juice stain."
wet_panties: "Panties that have wet marks on them. It could be due to many reasons, such as recent urination or pussy juice from sexual arousal."

The only difference between the wikis is "stain" vs. "wet marks". I guess stains are dried bodily fluids and wet marks are bodily fluids that are still wet? Do you really think that's a distinction that we need to enforce, or that we're even going to be able to enforce? The point of both tags is simply panties, with either urine or pussy juice on them.

NNescio said:

It's possible for stained panties to not be wet, but current tag usage and wiki defs don't seem to support this.

I'm fine with reversing the alias if people would prefer that for this reason

Reply
NNescio

Cattywampus said:

I mean, in theory stained panties could also apply to feces or blood...but I don't think that's something we'd be seeing too often.

Think those might count as wet too if they haven't haven't dried up yet.

CormacM said:

stained_panties: "Panties with a stain on them. Can be due to peeing oneself or a pussy juice stain."
wet_panties: "Panties that have wet marks on them. It could be due to many reasons, such as recent urination or pussy juice from sexual arousal."

The only difference between the wikis is "stain" vs. "wet marks". I guess stains are dried bodily fluids and wet marks are bodily fluids that are still wet? Do you really think that's a distinction that we need to enforce, or that we're even going to be able to enforce? The point of both tags is simply panties, with either urine or pussy juice on them.

I concur.

Cattywampus said:

I'm fine with reversing the alias if people would prefer that for this reason

I'm fine with the current proposed alias. Though I refrained from voting because I'm not sure how other people would want the alias to go, or whether if there's anybody who want to pop up and disambiguate/garden the two tags. And the possibility of dried blood/feces being not technically "wet".

Though yeah... personally fine with an alias either way. Moving to vote yes.

Reply
CoreMack

heartattack said:

Would you tag these wet_panties:
post #4414000
post #4383479

Point taken, and these aren't the only examples under stained panties that I don't really want to call "wet panties".

Would you tag these stained_panties:
post #4604240
post #4594836
post #4468177

Well, this brings up a whole new problem which I should have noticed earlier. Regarding #1 and #3, panties that are soaked in water from bathing or rain are completely different both visually and in fetish significance from panties that have a small damp spot from pussy juice/urine, and I tend to think they should get different tags. (compare post #4604240 to post #4625102)

Which leaves us with three concepts and two tags, and I can't think of a new tag name (damp panties?) that isn't horrendously ambiguous.

I've also noticed that we have pussy juice stain, pee stain, blood stain, etc.

So here's an entirely different suggestion: make stained panties for panties with small damp spots/stains, and add *_stain whenever you can tell which kind of bodily fluid it is. Make wet panties for panties that are soaked, whether with water or pussy juice, and add pussy juice stain where appropriate.

This makes more sense given that wet panties implicates wet clothes, the wiki for which is "Wet clothes are quite clingy, often times accentuating curves and even becoming see-through while still leaving something to the imagination." This does not fit well at all with small patches of dampness on panties. If I get some +1's on this I'll reject my BUR and do the gardening.

Reply
nonamethanks

You forget that "wet panties" is universally understood to be a term for panties stained by pussy juice.
I think it's reasonable to expect that a casual user would use "wet panties" and "stained panties" interchangeably.

Sure, we can force a change, but I really doubt it'll be followed by most users.

Reply
CoreMack

nonamethanks said:

You forget that "wet panties" is universally understood to be a term for panties stained by pussy juice.
I think it's reasonable to expect that a casual user would use "wet panties" and "stained panties" interchangeably.

I agree with both of these statements, and that's essentially what motivated the original BUR. ​But as others have pointed out, there's a big difference between post #4383479 and post #4468177. I'm just trying to find some way to distinguish them because people seem to think that's necessary, while sticking as closely as possible to the intuitive definitions of "wet" and "stained".

If we want to keep stained panties/wet panties just for "panties damp with pussy juice" because that's the universal understanding of the phrase, then we need different tag for "panties soaked with water" and different tag for dried urine/blood/shit stains. They're very different concepts and easily visually distinguishable. For the former maybe wet_clothes and nothing else? For the latter, maybe *_stain alone will suffice?

Reply
1