Tag Discussion: "assless" panties

As demonstrated in post #290125 and others like it, it seems "assless" panties could use a tag. The problem is that the most obvious one, "assless_panties", seems like it would reinforce the mistaken "porn site" identity (I'm sure we don't want another "pussy_juice"). On the other hand, it might be impractical to soften it because it's going to be a tag that will by and large service questionable or explicit posts, and calling it something cryptic would render it less useful as a tag. Any ideas?

EDIT: How I got away with using "implicit" instead of "explicit" on Danbooru, I'll never know.

thong

darkadherent said:
thong

Not the same thing as in this one exposes the anus while thongs don't.

I prefer anusless_clothing, as panties aren't the only clothing that can have the anus exposed, with the word "anusless" to be more specific.

So far, there are two other tags that are similar in concept: nippleless_clothing and crotchless_panties.

There's a subset within nippleless_clothing that exposes the breasts entirely rather than just the nipples; I would want to tag them as breastless_clothing, and maybe a frame_bikini tag for bikinis that provide zero coverage, but I'd like some input before doing so.

I would want to change the crotchless_panties tag to crotchless_clothing for consistency.

"Anusless" is more polite and medically correct than "assless", but I wonder if we could find something more suitable yet still intuitive. "xxxx_clothes" seems like it would work fine, since it covers (or doesn't cover) the same patch of flesh. Pants or pantsu--not much difference.

backless_panties?
open-backed_panties?

+1 anusless_clothing; this makes it more widely applicable, and one could simply add a separate tag for whichever item of clothing it applies to.

1+ backless_panties; they're just panties without ass coverage, plus backless has a nicer ring than anusless does.

+1 backless

+1 backless for me too

I already explained that the term "panties" is a bad choice. Panties aren't the only clothing that can have an anus-exposing hole built in.

That's a nice thought, but it doesn't make the tag any better.

+1 backless sounds better than anusless

Log said:
That's a nice thought, but it doesn't make the tag any better.

How? Sure, anusless_clothing may not be the most aesthetically pleasing tag to look at, but it's neutral, unambiguous, and all-encompassing for different kinds of clothing, not just panties.

You seem to be convinced that specificity is bad, when in reality it's not. Not every tag has to be all-encompassing nor should it be. There are 45 tags for types of panties as it stands.

Backless_clothing is fine as long as you write a wiki page clearly defining what it is anyways. It may not be the most unambiguous tag ever but we have a million tags like that.

I'm confused. Are you voting for backless_panties tag or proposing the backless_clothing tag?

See, though, backless_clothing would be misinformative. A backless dress, for example, looks something like this:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7159/bed0006.jpg

"anusless" is specific enough to get it across, even if it sounds unpleasant. And as for not making things specific, I think in this case it's called for - I don't see very many items of clothing in pics on Danbooru that would fit the bill, so even casting a wide net with the terminology, we'd still get only a few hits on the tag.

A clear-cut wiki definition should cut back on incorrect tags and most people don't tag beyond dress colors, anything that's not a dress color or wedding dress has less than 10 posts, currently. Backless dresses are the only thing I can think of that could possibly fall incorrectly under the tag.

Backless dresses are one of those things that really should be tagged better than they are.

Whenever I think of "assless" panties, assless chaps comes to mind. That may be something completely different though, and for that I am ashamed.

I've never thought of the word anusless, because it's too real, if that makes sense. I vote for assless, as silly as it may be.