Danbooru

adonis_belt

Posted under Tags

TDLR: I'd like to revive the topic of the adonis_belt tag. It's currently aliased to groin. I believe it should either be aliased to hip_bones or else revived and given a clearer definition. Gross anatomy sure as hell is not my strong suit, so I apologize in advance for the lengthy explanation.

Links to previous forum topics relating to this tag:
Examples (all are rating:safe):

(muscular_male)

  • adonis belt (tagged as groin but the groin isn't actually visible): post #4459689
  • adonis belt and groin: post #4419428, post #4415179 (If you look at the left side, the artist left a small gap between the two)
  • abs and groin but no adonis belt: post #4312744, 4254557
  • post #4075180 is a good example of what is and isn't groin - male on the right has visible groin but the one on the left doesn't

(muscular_female)

Explanation:

The original wiki for adonis_belt was pretty vague when compared to other anatomical tags with wikis. It doesn't exactly help that hip_bones isn't clear on the underlying anatomy of these bony protrusions. If you look at a person with very little muscle and body fat, the top of the pelvic bone is visible below the waist and the hip joints at the bottom can be seen just above the pubic area. The adonis belt is shaped by the ends of the abdominal and oblique muscles where they attach to the pelvic bone and it does extend from the iliac crest to the pubic bone (as per the original wiki definition). Developing these muscles, specifically the obliques, is what creates the v shape in the lower abdomen (above the hip joints.

On the other hand, the groin is the region starting at the hip joints and ending in the upper inner-thigh area. This includes the mons pubis/pubic mound (aka mound_of_venus), which is just the pad of fat that covers the pubic bone. Just like everybody has nipples, everybody has this layer of padding.

Based on all the medical and weightlifting/strength training I've looked at, the visible adonis_belt is the defined furrow in the region between the navel and groin that forms with lower abs AND well-developed lower obliques. It's because of where the obliques connect to the pubic bone that the v of the adonis belt lines up with the v of the groin. So @Evasion was correct in saying that the adonis_belt and mound_of_venus are separate things in forum #171366. A good distinction is that a person won't get arrested for public indecency by exposing their adonis belt to strangers.

Note regarding female musculature: The wider pelvis can make it look like a female with very little body fat has an adonis belt when it's just the contour of the pelvic bone. Hence the importance of developed obliques. (See post #2776751) If it's an adonis belt, there are furrows both at the top and bottom of the lower obliques. Otherwise it's just the contour along the pelvic bone to the hip joints.

The sad news is, although your reasoning is correct, expecting that overly specific concepts like that would be used correctly is too idealistic. The english wikipedia redirects you to "mons pubis" when you try to search for "mound of venus", the best examples of posts under the mons pubis tag I can think of so far are (Q): post #3803127 and post #2541574, even so, mound of venus is aliased to groin instead of mons pubis, we also have fat mons being massively used for "fat labia", instead of real fat mons. This is a glimpse of how hard it'd be to enforce the correct definition for those tags unless you do the gardening yourself.

Personally, even if I do consider myself pedantic and unecessarily meticulous often, I don't think some obscure tags like that being misused is a big deal itself, it's expected that the average uploader and user don't care/know about them, I just discovered adonis belt right now, for example. Unless some admin could bring some objetive data to disprove me, I believe most people don't search for them, given how the first use of mons pubis was made on mid 2008 and the tag only sums 235 posts to the present day, despite many posts could easily been tagged with it.

In short, if you manage to write comprehensible wikis for them and mantain the gardening, it may be worth sorting them out, request unaliases and the correct aliases later. But I'm almost sure you'll have to do most, if not all of the gardening job yourself, the good news is that, because so few people care/use some of them, the gardening would be easier for you. Btw you pinged the wrong user, the correct name is evazion and not evasion.

Updated

iridescent_slime said:

I still think hip_bones should be reserved for posts where the iliac crest is prominent beneath the skin, like in post #1619340, whether there's a visible furrow or not. But it's so cluttered with posts where all you can see is a faint line that I'm on the verge of writing it off as a lost cause.

Tbh I had that one forum topic you posted examples in open in a tab while I was searching for my examples. They came in handy when I was trying to figure out whether a female had developed obliques or if it was just the contour of the ilia. While I've looked at the wiki numerous times, I hadn't ever actually looked at the posts with the hip_bones tag until now and I see what you mean. And in the case of the adonis_belt it's the external oblique that's prominent, not the iliac crest.

Btw you pinged the wrong user, the correct name is evazion and not evasion.

GDI. Of course that just had to be my one typo.

This is a glimpse of how hard it'd be to enforce the correct definition for those tags unless you do the gardening yourself.

Personally, even if I do consider myself pedantic and unnecessarily meticulous often, I don't think some obscure tags like that being misused is a big deal itself, it's expected that the average uploader and user don't care/know about them, I just discovered adonis belt right now, for example.

Literally me with tagging. Admiral_Pectoral has had to remind me that it isn't necessary and I've gotten better, but sometimes I just can't help being very meticulous. Also the pedantry is spot on considering this is all because I was convinced that adonis_belt and mound_of_venus shouldn't be aliased to the same region of the body. Tbh I also had no idea the adonis_tag existed until a few days ago. I was thinking of obliques but it had only 9 posts at the time. Currently there are 12 but there's no wiki for obliques like there are for abs and biceps so I was thinking it was somebody's pet tag (because I still have a lot to learn about how things work on this site). Then I thought maybe there was a proper name for developed obliques and that would be the appropriate tag. Took me a few days to think of it but that's what the adonis_belt is.

In short, if you manage to write comprehensible wikis for them and maintain the gardening, it may be worth sorting them out, request unaliases and the correct aliases later. But I'm almost sure you'll have to do most, if not all of the gardening job yourself, the good news is that, because so few people care/use some of them, the gardening would be easier for you.

I've worked on the instrument_request tag a bit, so I've written a few wikis already, including proper formatting and external links. Would it be ok if I use the obliques tag for this? Only 3 people have used it at this point, 2 of which are @Admiral_Pectoral and myself.

Whisky_and_Roses said:

I've worked on the instrument_request tag a bit, so I've written a few wikis already, including proper formatting and external links. Would it be ok if I use the obliques tag for this? Only 3 people have used it at this point, 2 of which are @Admiral_Pectoral and myself.

My opinion on that is as long as you're not creating extra tags for the same concepts and the wikis are pretty clear, containing some good posts as example, then it's unlikely the tags will be aliased to another tag in the future, like abs, or nuked. Given how specific and niche this tag is, it's very unlikely it'll be polluted by other users.

Edit: I might be missing something, but I think aliasing very specific concepts to a general tag doesn't make any sense imo, if someone ever search for mound of venus, they definitely know what it means and they're not merely looking for groin, for example.

Updated

iridescent_slime said:

I still think hip_bones should be reserved for posts where the iliac crest is prominent beneath the skin, like in post #1619340, whether there's a visible furrow or not. But it's so cluttered with posts where all you can see is a faint line that I'm on the verge of writing it off as a lost cause.

I've only been here a bit over 4 months so I apologize if I sound like a dummy. I know there are users who might not care if their definition of a tag matches the wiki description. But could some of that clutter be due to hip_lines being aliased to groin and misconception that groin is synonymous with the pubic area? I mean, even if that's not the reason, decluttering it would mean a whole hell of a lot of gardening. Anybody who'd undertake that mess has my respect. I'd offer to help but, with a tag that large, I wouldn't want to screw something up for those of you with purple names.

Hyozen said:

My opinion on that is as long as you're not creating extra tags for the same concepts and the wikis are pretty clear, containing some good posts as example, then it's unlikely the tags will be aliased to another tag in the future, like abs, or nuked. Given how specific and niche this tag is, it's very unlikely it'll be polluted by other users.

Edit: I might be missing something, but I think aliasing very specific concepts to a general tag doesn't make any sense imo, if someone ever search for mound of venus, they definitely know what it means and they're not merely looking for groin, for example.

I can understand wanting to avoid having a bunch of tags that all reference the same concept. It makes life easier for all the users who manage that stuff. For what it's worth though, the kind of aliasing you mentioned doesn't make sense to me either. I used to always shrug it off when I came across something like that, figuring there's some method behind the madness that I'm still too new to understand. But this time it just got under my skin (no pun intended) and I had to ask about it.

Updated

1