Tag alias: kimono_down -> clothing_down

Posted under General

Ah... I started that since it seemed straightforward enough and had little posts, but then kinda stopped midway and added it to my list of things to bring up on the forum but didn't get to it yet. Sorry about that.
Now that we're here though:

Clothing_down is supposed to be something like an upper clothing variant of pants_down and should really be under shirt_down instead (currently). Contrasting with shirt_pull and pants_pull in the extent and type of pulling down/exposure.
I don't really see the need for specific clothingarticle_down tags here since we can just add the clothing article instead and maintain sufficient accuracy.
While the upper variants aren't much used (looking at it, "shirt" is used as "top garment" here), there are many lower body garments with down -> pull aliases.
I think those could maybe be undone as well and the _down tags consolidated under bottoms_down, with upper garments under top_down, and the only exceptions being underwear like panties and bra. In the case of panties, there is even the separate pussy_peek to take over part, or most, of what would be panty_pull.
The way the shirt_pull wiki is worded, it sounds like its main intention was to refer to pulling of the collar, or at least a similar level of exposure, which sounds natural enough and distinct from clothing being way lowered.

To illustrate:

I'd like to say these are distinct, and a similar distinction can be made for upper garments.

In short:
-- external layer
top_pull (it looks like this even exists already)
-- internal layer
bra_down (questionable; may be omitted)

One-piece garments can be considered top garments.
For top_* and bottom_*, the garments themselves can be tagged separately.
A guideline for pull vs down could be the feasibility of reaching a similar level of exposure through pulling, or requirement of pulling, or work in general, before gravity takes over.
off_shoulder could be added or replace one of these depending on context.

Alternatively, *_down could be used for all variations of clothing being lowered, with *_pull reserved for actual pulling, which would seem even more natural, but lose some of the distinction given in the pants examples above.
I do believe the current inability to efficiently search for at least "cleavage exposing pull" ala post #965724 or post #797858 is something that is lacking though. (One could also use top_peek, bottom_peek, panty/pussy_peek for this? Especially in the non-alternative solution.)

Either way, I didn't change much in regards to clothing_down if one wants to just reverse this. I'll clean it up myself if that's the conclusion we reach.
Also this post was a lot longer than I intended it to be, I hope it makes sense.

  • Reply
  • Important:

    I expanded tag group:nudity exhaustively with all the existing tags mentioned here and more.

    Please read it. It should be useful for this thread.


    In particular, the distinction between "*_pull" and "*_down" is confusing to me. Apparently it is a matter of how much below the normal level the piece of clothing is. If that's true, some cleanup would be necessary to enforce that rule.


  • Reply
  • Since at least 3-4 years ago, we have pretty uniformly used *_pull to tag anything pulled down from the top with the effect of exposing the body or undergarments (shirt_pull, pants_pull, skirt_pull, panty_pull, etc).

    What you are calling *_down (never an established pattern) has always been in this category. I can see where a distinction could be made for pants though.

    From the other side *_lift has been used for anything pulled up from the bottom with the effect of exposing the body or undergarments (shirt_lift, skirt_lift, etc)

    We've also had *_tug, to indicate a garment being pulled down from the bottom usually with the intent of covering one's self (shirt_tug, skirt_tug, etc).

    As for shirt_down, it doesn't feel too intuitive to me (it feels similar to how pants_lift would). I'd prefer we continue use shirt_pull for that, with cleavage as appropriate.


  • Reply
  • That sounds fine to me really. We just need some more down -> pull aliases then. (I think happening upon the non-aliased tags was part of my original confusion)
    I still feel like a useful distinction could be made though, as illustrated in my previous post, but I guess I'm fine with whatever you guys decide.

  • Reply
  • 1