Buruma and panties

BUR #35527 has been approved by @evazion.

create implication panties_under_buruma -> panties

You can't have panties showing under buruma without panties present. Also it should count as panty peek for similar reasons.

I wouldn't classify post #7868521 as a panty peek. It should definitely imply panties though.

ANON_TOKYO said:

I wouldn't classify post #7868521 as a panty peek. It should definitely imply panties though.

Okay that's a good argument, I didn't consider that properly.

In some cases you can only see pantylines, not the actual panties themselves (panties_under_buruma pantylines). Maybe those shouldn't count though.

I would argue that unless we tag panties on all pantylines posts (which we don't) that panties_under_buruma should only apply where the panties are at least a small bit directly visible, and that pantylines alone shouldn't be sufficient for the tag (it's just the default assumption).

I agree with the above, they should be visible peeking outside for it to count.

The bulk update request #35527 (forum #330654) has been approved by @evazion.

Removed the cases where it was just pantylines then.