Posted under Tags
What about going_commando -> bottomless? The former can be used to tag pictures showing the action, plus the latter tag isn't gender-specific.
EDIT: That would probably fit better as an implication, but it's food for thought.
Unless we want to go with gender-specific terms (freeballing -> male, freebuffing -> female), bottomless should suffice.
No, it isn't the same thing. It is a quite specific suboccasion of lack of panties, when the rest of the body is normally clothed and when said lack of panties can be easily hidden. On the other hand, around a quarter of no_panties also contain nipples tag alone, not to mention other things that make an outfit, er, non-normal. And yes, I thought about using gender-specific term, but then decided that 1) way more people are familiar with the generic 'going commando' term and 2) I don't think we'll have many male examples. If anything, an implication should be used, IMO.
Updated
Canadabro said:
What about going_commando -> bottomless? The former can be used to tag pictures showing the action, plus the latter tag isn't gender-specific.
EDIT: That would probably fit better as an implication, but it's food for thought.
Bottomless is something different. It's for when the character is not only not wearing underwear, but also not wearing any other lower-body clothing (skirts/pants/etc). So no alias or implication there.
Just wondering but do we have a gender-neutral no_underwear tag or something. Underwear itself does not necessarily mean panties, briefs, boxers, bloomers, anything for the lower half. It just means anything worn underneath the clothes and going commando literally means "no underwear" (or the Chilean "andar a lo gringo" (going Gringo-style).
So do we go no_underwear or axe it out of trying to tag something like this.
Kadoya said:
Just wondering but do we have a gender-neutral no_underwear tag or something. Underwear itself does not necessarily mean panties, briefs, boxers, bloomers, anything for the lower half. It just means anything worn underneath the clothes and going commando literally means "no underwear" (or the Chilean "andar a lo gringo" (going Gringo-style).
So do we go no_underwear or axe it out of trying to tag something like this.
Wouldn't "no_underwear" include bras? The no_panties tag is for lower-body underwear only; whether a bra is being worn or not doesn't affect it.
I guess we could rename no_panties to "no_lower-body_underwear", but that sounds a bit too wordy.
Isn't no_panties sufficient as it is? It's already being used as a gender-neutral tag, despite the word "panties" being in its name.
How about this:
implicate freeballing -> going_commando
implicate no_panties -> going_commando
One for boys, one for girls and going_commando for gender neutral lack-of-lower-undergarment. Our wiki says going_commando is female only but Wikipeida and some dictionaries say it's gender neutral.
Though admittedly this is a pretty drastic change. no_panties has 26k+ posts and going_commando only has 8.
So then what about the things under crossdressing no_panties, those end up getting migrated to this new freeballing tag or because they're crossdressing we stick to using no_panties?
NWF_Renim said:
So then what about the things under crossdressing no_panties, those end up getting migrated to this new freeballing tag or because they're crossdressing we stick to using no_panties?
For crossdressing no_panties panties cases where you know they're missing panties then use no_panties. Eg. post #476062 post #667240. This also applies if you know they're missing panties (or briefs) from the parent/sibling or pools.
For general crossdressing no_panties cases just go with going_commando since we don't know whether they're forgoing panties or forgoing briefs.
Log said:
I see zero advantage in separating the tags based on gender.
This is not about gender; males can wear panties and females can wear briefs. This is about us not having a tag for when someone is missing their boxer or briefs. It could be for a boy like post #1414057 (note the underwear_removed tag) or it could be for a girl like post #639562 (note the erroneous panties_around_one_leg tag).
Either make no_panties gender neutral (which I fully support) or create a new tag for someone, boy or girl, missing their boxer or briefs.
Ironbottom said:
This is not about gender; males can wear panties and females can wear briefs. This is about us not having a tag for when someone is missing their boxer or briefs.
I see zero advantage in separating the tags based on the type of underwear.
Especially when no_panties is about the lack of underwear, meaning you can't even tell with certainty which type it is most of the time.
Ironbottom said:
Either make no_panties gender neutral (which I fully support)
If we really need to rename the tag, I say we go with no_underwear and put a note on the wiki stating the bras and such don't matter for the purposes of this tag.
Ironbottom said:
or create a new tag for someone, boy or girl, missing their boxer or briefs.
There are other types of underwear you're forgetting too, such as bloomers and probably more. All the more reason we should have one tag for all of them, instead of creating a dozen separate tags.
Toks said:
If we really need to rename the tag, I say we go with no_underwear and put a note on the wiki stating the bras and such don't matter for the purposes of this tag.
I'll all for this. Or alternatively editing the wiki so that no_panties covers all missing-lower-undergarment.
Ironbottom said:
I'll all for this. Or alternatively editing the wiki so that no_panties covers all missing-lower-undergarment.
It already says so:
Used when someone is in a situation where you would expect her to be wearing panties (or equivalent underwear) e.g. under a skirt, dress, or pants, but she isn't.
