Posted under General
came across post #1319970 and tagged it zettai_ryouiki. did a zettai_ryouiki leafa search and am surprised it's the lone post. did i mistag it? am asking before i tag the rest. i understand zettai_ryouiki is not exclusive to skirts, right? thanks.
Updated by richie
Zettai_ryouiki is skirt only and can't be tagged with shorts like Leafa's.
Not exactly skirt only, it also works with skirt-like clothing such as dresses, for example post #1315955. But yeah, shorts or other pants would be stretching it too much.
Quote from wiki: "The tag is not viable if the image shows panties in between the thighhighs and skirt."
So, I guess the question is if you qualify Leafa's shorts as panties or not. I guess they are still her underwear - therefore no zettai_ryouiki tag for her.
But for shorts which are not an undies, ZR tag apparently does apply. For example post #1055999 where I had similar dilemma.
richie said:
Quote from wiki: "The tag is not viable if the image shows panties in between the thighhighs and skirt."
I always wondered where that rule came from. It seems completely arbitrary. Looking at the history, Riderfan added it but there does not appear to be any discussion on the forums or any post regarding this "rule".
Changing the viewing angle to make panties visible or hidden should not change whether there is zettai ryouiki or not, really, so I vote for removing this unnecessary restriction. Or maybe clarifying it to only apply when panties are pulled down into the ZR, if that was the intent.
But consider post #1210752, if the angle were slightly higher so you couldn't see the panties, it'd be zettai ryouiki but with the pantyshot it isn't?
That makes no sense. There is no difference to the bare thigh skin whether the panties are visible or not, so presence of a pantyshot should not play a role in whether the zettai ryouiki tag applies or not.
But integral part of ZR fetish is what you "cannot see". Of course distinction by visible panties (or underwear) is not perfect and we can argue that if only angle was a little different etc. but on the other hand, if we discard the "no panties visible" clause then in fact almost all thighhighs would qualify for ZR tag (assuming those who does not have any strip of bare skin visible will be tagged as pantyhose). How about post #1164427 then? post #894396 post #10771 post #37751 post #71437 All of them should be tagged as ZR? Really? I don't think so.
richie said:
How about post #1164427 then? post #894396 post #10771 post #37751 post #71437 All of them should be tagged as ZR? Really? I don't think so.
No, they shouldn't, but not because of the panties. Half the pics you posted don't even have a skirt, and in the other half it's lifted up so that it doesn't create the ZR region.
If the ZR region between skirt and thighhighs is there, it should be tagged regardless of panties, and not one of your pics appears to be a counterexample of that.
I don't think I agree that it's about "what you cannot see." But that could be either my personal preference or yours, it's hard to call that shot without other people weighing in.
This is just wikipedia here, but if i go by the first sentence of the ZR page on the jp wiki, it also includes shortpants.
Howerver, no source is provided for this information.
AS the warnings state on the page, most references are BBS boards discussions, and would be requiring discussion as well.
piespy said:
so that it doesn't create the ZR region.
In that case, what are the requirements of that "ZR region" to be created then?
I say ZR region is the area of bare thighs between skirt (optionally shorts) and thighhighs (stockings). Of course, in such case panties are definitely out - because it's the skirt which is responsible of upper border of it. And what is your definition?
As for picture references I can do better, here you are:
post #1319940 post #1313086 post #1310574 post #1306958 post #1308949 post #1281039 post #1280869 post #1280824 post #1276973 post #1274480
Do these pictures contain ZR region or not? And why?
I'd say in my mind that post #1210752 does contain ZR because the skirt's hem is below the level of the panties (if viewed from a typical front-on angle, or from the perspective of the subject), and from that angle you would get the typical Skirt, skin, thighhigh pattern that defines ZR.
None of your other examples meet those criteria. In almost all of them, the skirt is lifted, or the ass / hips are completely visible which would seem to violate ZR by exposing way too much skin between thighhigh & skirt. Basically in none of them could you even rotate the scene in such a way that the ZR pattern would appear. Either the skirt is pulled way too high, or the character is bent in such a way that the skirt would cover the thighhighs (from the front for example).
just for verification, so ZR refers not only to that wonderful band of bare skin on the girl's thighs but the articles of clothing (thighhighs and skirt/dress and occasionally shorts) that make them visible also matters?
a few questions: how about post #1274836? if the underwear were panties, i understand it's not ZR. but if bike_shorts serving as an underwear under a dress? similarly, post #636295?
post #337988 - this one is similar to leafa's. is this also a mistag? if yes and this is not ZR, should we have a separate tag for this not to pollute ZR?
Updated
ghostrigger said:
just for verification, so ZR refers not only to that wonderful band of bare skin on the girl's thighs but the articles of clothing (thighhighs and skirt/dress and occasionally shorts) that make them visible also matters?
Yes. Our zettai_ryouiki tag implicates thighhighs.
AFAIK, the original defintion allowed only for the combination of miniskirt + over-kneehighs or thighhighs.
The pixpedia article does mention that some cases exist in recent years in which the same with short_pants has also been called zettai_ryouiki. It does not elaborate on whether or not this is generally accepted.
I do say though, that we should use the tag only if the "band of bare skin" is revealed, nothing more above or below this, so no panties (in general, no upskirt). Basically, if you have to change the angle to make it zettai_ryouiki, then it isn't zettai_ryouiki.
edit: Just found this, I wonder if that would count.
pixiv #8529514
Updated
richie said:
Do these pictures contain ZR region or not? And why?
They don't, because of the skirt position like Shinjidude said. Basically, visible panties are a symptom of the skirt hem being too far up, but not the actual reason why there's no ZR.
I note that in all your examples, the earlier ones and these ones, the asscheeks are visible. Could this be a more acceptable determinant than the panties? Basically, if the hem of the skirt is so high (due to being lifted or the pose) that it's above her thighs and the ass is exposed, then there can't be a ZR region, similarly if it's so low that it covers the thighhighs.
Or maybe a more general requirement is that (a) the hem of the skirt is on the level of her thighs and (b) above her thighhighs, so that there's a region or bare skin on her thighs but not, e.g., on her ass. Panties would only make a difference then if they're pulled down into that region and break it up.
Going back to the original topic, personally I wouldn't consider the exposed skin on Leafa's thighs a ZR region, but I can't really give any reason other than that it's esthetically quite different, though it'd be more ZR-like if her shorts were, well, shorter. But I wouldn't care either way if it gets tagged anyway. So I don't think a separate tag is warranted.
Shinjidude said:
None of your other examples meet those criteria.
Excuse me, but surely you must be kidding me now. It's more than obvious to me, that if only camera angle was different - i.e. high enough from above then we've got their panties (and buttocks) hidden and thus fully legitimate ZR situation. This applies to almost every single picture I've provided. Best examples are post #1310574 and post #1306958. We only need to get the camera angle higher, and then we get something like post #1179165 or post #946588.
Of course, this may work both ways - and one can argue, that if we can get camera angle of post #1179165 only lower, then we will see her panties or/and her ass and then it's no longer ZR that's way it shouldn't be tagged as such.
And that's exactly why such argumentation is flawed. It's flawed because it's absolutely subjective not to mention about neglecting "tag what you see" rule.
tldr;
S1eth said:
Basically, if you have to change the angle to make it zettai_ryouiki, then it isn't zettai_ryouiki.
Thank you.
richie said:
...
Again you are missing the point that it's not the angle that really matters it's the composition. In the one low-angle image I say seems to be valid ZR by my book, the skirt hem is well below the hips/crotch, in none of the others is this the case. That is the crucial difference.
While I don't think a view from the ground between the girl's legs facing up would really apply for ZR, it's not the camera angle that matters, it is how she is dressed and posed and if that clothing / pose constitutes a ZR configuration.
If you can clearly see that independent of the camera angle (i.e. from a typical view) that there is skirt, strip of skin, thighhigh, it seems to meet the essential criteria. None of your other examples meet these criteria and most don't come anywhere close.
As for tag what you see: having a pov below normal exposing a slight pantyshot in a standing position doesn't mean that I can't clearly see that she is in a configuration that clearly demonstrates zettai ryouiki.
piespy said: (asscheeks)
Interesting that you mention this, because it's exactly the same situation as with pantyshots. There is no place for it in ZR, because (classic) ZR is complete only with all of the required elements: skirt-thighs-thighighs. Exclusively one after the other, that's the definition. If you add something extra in between: panties/underwear, ass(cheeks) or naked pussy then it's not ZR anymore. Neglecting this rule leads in the end to such ZR tag misuses as post #1315559 post #1027408 post #968012 or post #1286330 (see history as I've removed them already).
Having said that - problem with asscheeks is obvious: sometimes it's hard to distinguish when they ends and if we are seeing thighs already or not. That's why I tend to be lenient in such cases. But with panties? It's binary situation, either we can see panties or not. This is probably also the reason why it's been added to wiki: because it's easy to check and to remember. But it's not RiderFan's idea, it's logical implication of ZR definition.
Shinjidude said: (valid ZR by my book)
Please do revise your book then. In every definition of ZR I've seen, there is talk about skirt-thighs-thighhighs thing. And no single word about panties: but not because panties are optional but because it's skirt's hem that should border next area, not panties (similarly as there is no place for "optional" asscheeks, for example).
Updated
