Posted under Tags
create implication boobplate -> breastplate
Since the boobplate tag is meant to be for particular kinds of breastplates (i.e. ones that only cover the breasts or are molded to the shape of the wearer's breasts), it would make sense for the implication.
EDIT: The tag implication boobplate -> breastplate (forum #145005) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.
Updated by DanbooruBot
-1
If boobplate were restricted to full-coverage breastplates with moulded breast cups, treating it as a subset of breastplate would be logical. We can't do that, however, because of the tag's unfortunate secondary definition. Breastplates are supposed to protect the wearer's torso, not just the breasts. A "boobplate" that exposes ample cleavage and midriff (or even underboob!) is hardly a breastplate at all and should probably be regarded more like a type of bikini armor.
The tag implication boobplate -> breastplate (forum #145005) has been rejected by @Hillside_Moose.
iridescent_slime said:
-1
If boobplate were restricted to full-coverage breastplates with moulded breast cups, treating it as a subset of breastplate would be logical. We can't do that, however, because of the tag's unfortunate secondary definition. Breastplates are supposed to protect the wearer's torso, not just the breasts. A "boobplate" that exposes ample cleavage and midriff (or even underboob!) is hardly a breastplate at all and should probably be regarded more like a type of bikini armor.
Hmm, maybe the tag definition should be changed to remove that secondary definition? Having looked it over, it seems like the secondary definition is actually the definition of bikini armor.
However, that'd involve removing the tag from a number of pics.
