When a person wears a kimono but not panties, should it be tagged no_panties (or no_bra)? I ask because I heard somewhere that a person is not expected to wear bra or panties under a kimono and hence the tag would, by its definition, not apply.
Posted under General
BarefeetChaser said:
Thought the rule was "Tag what you see"
What he said.
just because someone wears a kimono does not mean that there is no underwear underneath.
if you see an open kimono w/o a bra and with panties, or with a bra and without panties or both or whatever, tag what you see.
I think you guys are misunderstanding OP. He seems to be asking whether no_panties/no_bra applies when a character is wearing a kimono and you can see and know for a fact that they're not wearing underwear underneath. For example, post #1592574. So "tag what you see" is obeyed.
The issue is whether the no_panties/no_bra tags apply at all to those posts, since you logically "wouldn't expect" someone to wear underwear under a kimono. The no_panties/no_bra wikis say that they only apply when you "would expect" them to be, but they're not.
JackyHF said:
When a person wears a kimono but not panties, should it be tagged no_panties (or no_bra)? I ask because I heard somewhere that a person is not expected to wear bra or panties under a kimono and hence the tag would, by its definition, not apply.
Personally I'd still apply the tags in these cases, since not wearing underwear is visually pretty much the same regardless of what other clothes they're wearing (as long as they're wearing some other clothes), so people would want them to turn up when searching for the tags. And also because not everyone knows about this "don't wear underwear below a kimono" thing.
S1eth said:
So what if we have context? What if you see someone wearing a yukata when they've just left the onsen, in which case it is obviously used as a bathrobe?
No. That's not following "tag what you see".
S1eth said:
I did not ask a question that could be answered by "yes" or "no", so I still don't know on which side you're on. I could interpret your answer either way.
The "no" was in response to your implied question of whether the tags should or should not be used. And I also said "That's not following "tag what you see".", which should make my statement even clearer. Let me spell it out for you:
Even if you have context that someone is probably not wearing underwear due to the fact that they have just left an onsen and are wearing a bathrobe, no, the no_panties/no_underwear should not be used unless you can see the lack of underwear visually, as they are visual-based tags and adding them would not be following "tag what you see".
I don't think you understand what I meant. The whole premise that I didn't know what the OP was talking about is wrong.
And I don't think the others misunderstood him either.
What z905844 is suggesting is that if you wear a kimono but (very clearly and visibly) no panties, you tag no_panties.
z905844 said:
if you see an open kimono w/o a bra and with panties, or with a bra and without panties or both or whatever, tag what you see.
What I'm bringing up is a case in which we can tell for sure that "not wearing panties" is the expected case.
The question was: if someone wears a yukata as a bathrobe (and is clearly not wearing underwear), can a no_panties/no_bra tag apply?
Updated by S1eth
S1eth said:
The question was: if someone wears a yukata as a bathrobe (and is clearly not wearing underwear), can a no_panties/no_bra tag apply?
I'd say it does. Chances are it'll be relevant to the interests of someone searching for no_bra or no_panties. Wearing underwear with a kimono, while traditionally not done, is not uncommon in modern depictions.
S1eth said:
What z905844 is suggesting is that if you wear a kimono but no panties, you tag no_panties.
I mean if you see a visible lack of panties, then tag it as such.
if you see someone wearing a kimono but no visible lack of panties, don't tag the lack.
S1eth said:
What z905844 is suggesting is that if you wear a kimono but (very clearly and visibly) no panties, you tag no_panties.
Yes, I already understood that, but thanks.
S1eth said:
What I'm bringing up is a case in which we can tell for sure that "not wearing panties" is the expected case.
The question was: if someone wears a yukata as a bathrobe (and is clearly not wearing underwear), can a no_panties/no_bra tag apply?
The answer to this comes down to how we interpret the intention of the "a situation where you would expect them to be wearing panties" part of the wiki. I think that the intention of this qualification is simply to exclude no_panties from being used together with nude, bottomless, or similar situations. Meaning that the tag should only be used on characters whose bottom half is clothed (excluding their underwear).
In that case, yes, I think the no_panties tag would apply for your example since wearing a bathrobe is still clothed. They're not nude or bottomless.
Also, even if a bathrobe and normal clothes (like a dress/kimono/whatever) are contextually different, they're still visually similar, so having them returned when searching for no_panties seems appropriate. (Would be easier to say if we had an example post though.)
Toks said:
In that case, yes, I think the no_panties tag would apply for your example since wearing a bathrobe is still clothed. They're not nude or bottomless.Also, even if a bathrobe and normal clothes (like a dress/kimono/whatever) are contextually different, they're still visually similar, so having them returned when searching for no_panties seems appropriate. (Would be easier to say if we had an example post though.)
Good timing with this upload yesterday. Would you (or anyone else) think this counts for no_panties/no_bra?
post #1609520
S1eth said:
Good timing with this upload yesterday. Would you (or anyone else) think this counts for no_panties/no_bra?
post #1609520
it qualifies for both, as you can see an actual lack of said articles.
S1eth said:
Good timing with this upload yesterday. Would you (or anyone else) think this counts for no_panties/no_bra?
post #1609520
I do think so.