Posted under General
These implications used to exist:
kyon_no_imouto -> imouto
choko -> imouto
There's less than 20 posts if you remove those two and apricot_sakuraba.
Currently the sister tag has 2 posts. Seems it's only meaningful when they're with a sibling: sisters or brother_and_sister.
Maybe "imouto" refers to the character stereotype instead? (post #35008)
Going through some points:
Just to confirm, Kyon's sister will and should stay kyon_no_imouto.
In a general sense, when it's not part of the character's (nick)name/(alias), I don't see any reason to tag younger sisters at all. Or sisters, or brothers, etc. We had this discussion quite a few times before.
I can see it being relevant for the *concept* of younger sisters, like being raised in the text of a comic as a theme or whatever, and in that case I don't care if it's little_sister or younger_sister or imouto. I prefer imouto because it brings up a host or mental images and associations commonly tied to stereotypical depictions of younger sisters in anime, and thus it's relevant to danbooru. little_sister is probably closer to that concept than younger_sister but neither conveys the same precise sense. But either way.
The familial relationship tags in general are something of a mess.
Further examination of parasol's ~20 posts reveal roughly half of them are simply youngish girls upon which the tagger may be projecting sisterly associations. The remainder deal almost exclusively with an imouto moe concept that's best left in the realm of Japanese eromanga.
I don't entirely buy that "imouto" is somehow more than "younger/little sister" in terms of semantics.
Of course younger sisters are treated differently in Japanese culture, but then social constructs are different in every culture. Would anyone care to define precisely what "imouto" implies that "younger/little sister" doesn't?
As Fencedude mentioned, one doesn't cease to be an "imouto" due to age, so "must be a little girl" doesn't cut it for me. Moreover, as T5J8F8 mentioned, "little sister" has that connotation anyway.
jxh2154 said:
Who are you replying to?
Those who claim it's not a taggable concept. If sister isn't a taggable concept, then neither is trap, genderswap, or alternate_outfit--or any other tag that is impossible to see without knowing canonical context (or Word of God). Clearly, we do take canon into account when tagging pictures, which makes little_sister a perfectly taggable concept.
Basically, I'm tired of this argument because we seem to have it every other month. ;)
スラッシュ said: Those who claim it's not a taggable concept. If sister isn't a taggable concept, then neither is trap, genderswap, or alternate_outfit--or any other tag that is impossible to see without knowing canonical context (or Word of God). Clearly, we do take canon into account when tagging pictures, which makes little_sister a perfectly taggable concept.
But what does it convey, when it's merely an indication of familial relationship? Of course I allow and even support the concept of contextual tags, I just strongly defended them in a thread recently.
But only when they serve a purpose. genderswap and alternate_outfit are very visual concepts, their purpose is obvious. They indicate contrast, something different from what the majority of images of a character would usually depict. Trap is useful for blacklists, and indicating when something shouldn't be futanari, if nothing else. I'm not as big a supporter of that one as the other two though.
So what purpose does little_sister serve, outside of images that address the anime otaku concept of imouto/little sisters which is about the most I could ever see being in favor of? I really don't think it's a slippery slope argument to ask if you'd support tagging *every* relationship the same way. Of course it's possible to tag it but why in the world should we?
I just really want to know how you or anyone else is defining little_sister that wouldn't result in an equally strong argument being made to tag post #415353 as father, son, brother, older_brother, sister, little_sister, daughter and friend. Throw a mother in there somewhere and you'd need wife (or domestic_partner) and mother. That would be insane, even ignoring the paired versions of those I've seen advocated in the past (brother_and_sister, etc). Let's also not get into more complicated arrangements due to extended family or divorce or... I really hope you see my point, and that I'm not at all trying to be disingenuous.
Also, I've registered many times my objection to the spoiler potential in familial relationship tags. If they can't justify their existence some other way, like trap does (arguably... don't think I'm a huge fan of that tag however, I dislike the spoiler potential), that's enough for me to object to their use.
Not everything that "is taggable" should be tagged, as we both know, and so all tags need to justify their existence. I can't see where tagging these relationships comes in. And if we should limit to just one or two, what makes them special?
There are way too many problems with it.
Before we started arguing linguistics, we probably should have asked the question jxh2154 is asking here. Will people be searching for this tag? And if they do, what is it they expect to find? Images of random girls who happen to have older siblings? Or is this about the stereotype?
