No underwear

BrokenEagle98 said:

With the above suggestions, we could go...

• Option #1
• Female
• Top: no_bra
• Bottom: no_panties
• Male
• Bottom: no_briefs

• Option #2
• Top: no_bra
• Bottom: no_underpants

• Option #3
• ...?

The first option works for me but to be honest, I just wanna nuke this tag already.

Well, we can table that topic for now at least.

I'd say there has been plenty of support for nuking the tag already, so it should just be removed while still ensuring that the appropriate no_* tag is put in place prior to deletion.

I'll get to it but with 400+ posts it may take a while, people are welcome to help if they want.

If we end up going with gender-specific labeling (option #1), shouldn't we make an exception for otoko no ko? One might argue for no briefs since they are biological males, but panties would be more in line with the rest of their outfits and overall gender presentation. Making an exception here would also be consistent with the exception we already make for tagging short hair.

Unbreakable said:

I'll get to it but with 400+ posts it may take a while, people are welcome to help if they want.

I've reduced the no underwear post count to ~160, the majority of the posts I tagged were naked sweaters.

iridescent_slime said:

If we end up going with gender-specific labeling (option #1), shouldn't we make an exception for otoko no ko? One might argue for no briefs since they are biological males, but panties would be more in line with the rest of their outfits and overall gender presentation. Making an exception here would also be consistent with the exception we already make for tagging short hair.

That sounds reasonable. The default would be the gender-specific option #1, and any situational (e.g. otoko no ko) or meta-knowledge (e.g. crossdresser) would modify that.

iridescent_slime said:

If we end up going with gender-specific labeling (option #1), shouldn't we make an exception for otoko no ko? One might argue for no briefs since they are biological males, but panties would be more in line with the rest of their outfits and overall gender presentation. Making an exception here would also be consistent with the exception we already make for tagging short hair.

I've always tagged those with no panties since they are wearing girl clothes, it seems like the logical thing to do.

Unbreakable said:

I've always tagged those with no panties since they are wearing girl clothes, it seems like the logical thing to do.

So have I, but the the no briefs wiki currently suggests otherwise, so I felt some clarification might be in order.

iridescent_slime said:

So have I, but the the no briefs wiki currently suggests otherwise, so I felt some clarification might be in order.

I would go with that kind of clothes they are wearing, if someone is wearing male clothes I would use no briefs and if someone was wearing female clothes I'd go with no panties but I'm open for suggestions.

And that should be all of them. I changed the wiki to reflect that this tag should not be used but someone else checking would be helpful as I'm not sure it's informative enough.

I gave the no underwear wiki a once-over...

BrokenEagle98 said:

I gave the no underwear wiki a once-over...

Thanks, I wasn't sure about including no_briefs since the tag is not in use yet.

So I'll firmly admit to being the one who started the tag with this picture as the main example post #2517835 someone who is wearing a full outfit with the exception of underwear. In the wiki I remember mentioning that some kimono's may apply as their traditionally worn without underwear but that should be done on a case by case basis as well as naked_ tags being unnecessary. I started that tag right before the naked_sweater trend took off which did ruin the concept for tag to me as well. Perhaps the tag could have been more specific to the example... I'm just not sure how it could have been done. Sorry for the troubles.