Danbooru

Flat grab implications

Posted under General

S1eth said:
I don't think a tag for grabbing small breasts is necessary.

Why? It looks very different, and breast_grab flat_chest will always return plenty of false results for people looking for that in particular (particularly flat-chested girls grabbing larger-breasted girls, which is a common theme).

EB said:
Why? It looks very different, and breast_grab flat_chest will always return plenty of false results for people looking for that in particular (particularly flat-chested girls grabbing larger-breasted girls, which is a common theme).

It's the same action. Why would we need different *grab tags based on the size of the grabbed breasts?
The "false results" argument doesn't work here. Those exist in any combined tag search, here it's maybe 5% . breast_grab flat_chest will give you just as good results as breast_grab large_breasts when multiple girls are in the image. Neither needs a special combined tag.
We'd see more images mistagged flat_chest when they're wearing clothes.

"(particularly flat-chested girls grabbing larger-breasted girls, which is a common theme)"
That sounds more tag-worthy.

Deelles said:
It's not about whether to create the tag or not, it's about implicating. The tag itself already exists.

It's not an established tag, so we should first discuss the tag itself before creating implications. Especially when the tag has such an awful name that should be changed before creating any implication.

Updated

I agree with S1eth that the tag seem redundant unless we are dead set against any false positives with tag combos.

Assuming that is the case I also agree that the tag name is awful.

It sounds like someone was trying to be clever when they created it instead of simply calling it what it is flat_chest_grab.

S1eth said:
It's the same action. Why would we need different *grab tags based on the size of the grabbed breasts?
The "false results" argument doesn't work here. Those exist in any combined tag search, here it's maybe 5% . breast_grab flat_chest will give you just as good results as breast_grab large_breasts when multiple girls are in the image. Neither needs a special combined tag.

I'm not saying the latter would need a combined tag, as there's nothing distinctive about it. There is with a completely flat chest being grabbed. This reminds me somewhat of the naizuri tag, which was mostly (though not unanimously) agreed as being separate from paizuri in forum #17556

We'd see more images mistagged flat_chest when they're wearing clothes.

Clothed characters should still be tagged if they're unambiguously flat chested.

Pyrolight said:
It sounds like someone was trying to be clever when they created it instead of simply calling it what it is flat_chest_grab.

I agree with this name change.

EB said:
This reminds me somewhat of the naizuri tag, which was mostly (though not unanimously) agreed as being separate from paizuri in forum #17556

I thought about that tag. I'm going to quote sgcdonmai here.

sgcdonmai said:
The whole point of naizuri is that paizuri is impossible without sufficient cleavage to squeeze a penis between. The two are somewhat related, but mutually exclusive.

Naizuri exists solely because it technically isn't paizuri (and therefore isn't tagged paizuri).

S1eth said:
I thought about that tag. I'm going to quote sgcdonmai here.
Naizuri exists solely because it technically isn't paizuri (and therefore isn't tagged paizuri).

If naizuri is separate from paizuri and flat_chest is separate from breasts, then shouldn't flat_grab be separate from breast_grab?

If we wanted breast_grab to cover any size of chest, I think it would be better renamed to chest_grab. Then we would alias flat_grab -> chest_grab.
That would fit better with the various *chest tags, which aren't *breasts because that would be too limiting.

Or if we didn't want to rename it, we should have separate tags for flat chest grabbing and breast grabbing like we have for naizuri/paizuri and flat_chest/breasts (in which case flat_grab should not be implicated to breast_grab like I originally proposed).

Since it looks like there are currently a lot more images of flat chests being grabbed under breast_grab than under flat_grab, I'm not sure if keeping flat chest grabbing separate is such a good idea anymore, even though I was for it earlier.
Now I think that the option of renaming breast_grab and using it for both cases may be better.

Also, I agree with renaming flat_grab -> flat_chest_grab if we don't merge it into chest_grab.

S1eth said:
Naizuri exists solely because it technically isn't paizuri (and therefore isn't tagged paizuri).

True. I think a better analogy here would be if those terms didn't exist, we were using a penis_between_breasts tag, and a separate tag being used for flat chests was being discussed.

Toks said:
Or if we didn't want to rename it, we should have separate tags for flat chest grabbing and breast grabbing like we have for naizuri/paizuri and flat_chest/breasts (in which case flat_grab should not be implicated to breast_grab like I originally proposed).

This is honestly exactly what I was thinking with this too, so I was not really completely in favor of the implication. Flat chests being grabbed are often tagged breast_grab, as you point out, so that solution would require a lot of cleanup to keep consistent and need more agreement here.

Toks said:
If we wanted breast_grab to cover any size of chest, I think it would be better renamed to chest_grab. Then we would alias flat_grab -> chest_grab.
That would fit better with the various *chest tags, which aren't *breasts because that would be too limiting.

The tag is called breast_grab to indicate that it should be used for female characters only. We had a similar case with an alias proposal from covering_breasts to covering_chest in forum #82075.
And forum #61029, which is also related to this thread.

1