The wiki says people can be bottomless even if they're wearing underpants (-no_panties), which seems sensible. Is that right? I noticed an admin removing the tag from one of my posts.
Updated by NWF Renim
Posted under General
The wiki says people can be bottomless even if they're wearing underpants (-no_panties), which seems sensible. Is that right? I noticed an admin removing the tag from one of my posts.
Updated by NWF Renim
The bottomless tag is kind of subjective. The current wiki is what I defined as bottomless, but I'll admit my definition was generated by seeing what was currently tagged bottomless and making a definition to fit in the majority of those images.
I take it the image you're referencing is post #399884? That's kind of a gray area, but I think bottomless wouldn't fit it. It's fairly common to depict women wearing dress shirts to bed with only panties. I don't think it's all that uncommon for many people to just go to bed in only a shirt and underwear.
I've kind of considered that bottomless requires that the character's outfit be something you'd normally expect the character to have bottom wear to go with the top wear.
Yeah, post #399884 was the one I had in mind. Sure it's common for people to wear just a shirt and underwear in bed, but is that really a reason to not use the tag? Personally, that post is exactly the kind of thing I'd want to see when searching for bottomless.
Would you go the other way if she were drawn without the bed or book? If she were standing up?
It sounds like you think of the tag as "only wearing half of their outfit", but I don't think it's useful to exclude the kind of bottomlessness seen in the linked post.