create implication arms_behind_head -> arms_up
If you raise arms behind head, then inevitably your arms will be in "up" state, right?
Posted under Tags
create implication arms_behind_head -> arms_up
If you raise arms behind head, then inevitably your arms will be in "up" state, right?
tapnek said:
But your arms are not fully up, are they? When someone tells you "arms up", you also put you hands up in the air. Putting your arms behind your head is an entirely different command.
Not really. It's not about commands, it's about the position.
So, that aside, let's refer to the wiki of arms_up.
"Good indicators:
the hands being around eye level or higher
the upper arms are away from body and not at the character's side"
So I can see why Sacriven suggested this.
Sacriven said:
If you raise arms behind head, then inevitably your arms will be in "up" state, right?
+1
Two of the example posts (post #1049273 & post #1049579) mentioned on the wiki page of arms_up are qualifying for arms_behind_head.
There are pictures where:
- The hands are behind the head but elbows are pointing down (as with the left arm in post #2392796 )
- The elbows are up but the hands are pointing downwards (eg. post #2348046)
- The character is lying down with the head resting on the arms (eg. post #2383159)
Do all of these want an arms up tag?
it should be noted that arms_up is aliased to both arms_above_head and arms_raised. post #2383159 as given above is a good counter to this implication i guess.
ghostrigger said:
it should be noted that arms_up is aliased to both arms_above_head and arms_raised. post #2383159 as given above is a good counter to this implication i guess.
This depends on the exact definition.
Rastamepas said:
No because any character lying down with their arms/hands behind their head is not arms_up
You can very well have your arms "up" in the sense of "on eye level" while lying down. Definition review needed!
Talking about the definition of limb positions, we might want to clean up this mess first. :D
Rastamepas said:
No because any character lying down with their arms/hands behind their head is not arms_up
But they would be up from a resting position or arms_at_sides.
If you rotate the image to an upright position they would be up, which is what the rule should be imo.
chodorov said:
But they would be up from a resting position or arms_at_sides.
If you rotate the image to an upright position they would be up, which is what the rule should be imo.
Would you tag post post #2044268 as knee up, then? And would post #1957254 have to be tagged pointing up?
If you're going to define arms up relative to the character's orientation, it's only logical to extend this definition to other posture-related tags.
Arms/arm/knees/knee/legs/leg up should be based on the character, since the movement is always the same. So you have to make the same action and it doesn't matter if upside-down or not.
Pointing is a bit of a stretch. That's not really a posture, but a gesture because the characters wants to express something. For example if someone is hanging upside-down on a tree and points to their legs, I think nobody says that this person is pointing down.
This automatic implication to raised and over head arms removes the validity of arms_up as a tag, as anything that involves raising arms becomes much harder to find o
If we allow arms_behind_head to automatically be arms_up, even when a character is upside down or on their back, IMO.
While you can have your hands behind your head and arms up, if we define arms up as any time arms are over shoulders, then we need to break the implications to arms_above_head and arms_raised. Otherwise, a character in their back in bed with their arms behind their head and on the pillow is identical to someone who's standing and is reaching up for an item in an overhead shelf as far as a basic search is concerned.
Those are two separate postures, and it makes no sense that arms_up should cover both with these implications already in place.
:/.
The tags you're talking either don't exist (arms above head) or are aliased to arms up. Which makes sense, because these tags don't make much of a difference. And that's also the reason why arms behind head will not be aliased to arms up but it is an implication, because of exceotions like the character is upside-down and it's more specific.
So you have more or less the same interests when you use raised arms or arms up or arms above, while arms behind head has more to it^^.So they are treated completely different.
My point is that arms_up is effectively useless with the additional implications. If raised_arms automatically goes to arms_up, then we've already made it so arms_up is an indication of vertical orientation. Not just to the body, but to the ground.
So, arms_behind_head ca also have arms_up, but it shouldn't be automatic. I'd I've got my arms behind my back while lying down, then the arms aren't oriented upwards any more than a person doing a headstand is considered to have her arms up.
Or does this mean outstretched_arms also count as arms_up and nee the implication as well, since they're raised and can be over shoulder height in the case of someone extending their arm to someone taller?
Not really. That is pretty much the same with cum_on_face and facial.Now when I build this for this case, cum on face becomes arms_above and facial becomes arms_up.
But facial can cover a lot more than just cum on face, for example spilled milk on the characters face, water etc. Same with arms up. Arms above is just a subgroup in my eyes. Cum on face would also be in a a subgroup.
More input on this? I'm rather reluctant because of post #2383159 and other possible cases where character is not standing upright - curled into a ball for example? Also note that hands_behind_head is aliased to arms_behind_head, and it's perfectly possible to put hands behind your head with elbows pointing downwards - if head is slightly lowered or hands are closer to the neck, for example.