Tag implication: cleavage_cutout -> cleavage

Posted under General

-1 renaming every freaking tag to make them gender neutral. Just because a male can wear something with a specific design feature doesn't mean we have to change tags in use for years to accommodate the .001%. Cleavage cutout is fine as it is.

chest cutout could easily be interpreted as a cutout anywhere on the chest. Cleavage cutout means exactly one thing: a cutout that on a busty character would reveal cleavage.

  • Reply
  • The problem isn't just with males, but also with girls who don't have any cleavage. It's a misnomer that might lead people to tag girls that are without breasts or cleavage with both of those.

    Even if there are a lot of images with cutouts somewhere else on the chest or men with holes in their shirts you would only have to add cleavage to your search.

    But if that's not enough cleavage cutout can remain it's own tag and implicate the neutral tag, chest cutout, for those without cleavage, male or female.

    It's a worthwhile tag either way.

  • Reply
  • I would argue that you're actually encouraging misuse rather than discouraging it by your own logic. chest cutout being broadened to cutouts anywhere on the chest, through misinterpretation or not, encourages users to add the cleavage tag to flat chests to show it's a cleavage cutout and not just a generic hole in the chest.

    A very very small minority of users may occasionally use a tag incorrectly. This is true for every single tag we have. If we did not want to deal with users accidentally using tags in a format other than they intended we just wouldn't use flavor tags at all.

  • Reply
  • Log said:
    chest cutout ... encourages users to add the cleavage tag to flat chests to show it's a cleavage cutout and not just a generic hole in the chest.

    This scenario is far more unlikely considering it would have to actually be an image with a random cutout in the chest, not actually have cleavage, and then have someone who would think that necessary. All I'm talking about is simple word association. It's far more likely for someone to either avoid adding cleavage cutout because there is no cleavage or adding cleavage to a flat chested image because they tagged cleavage cutout. Even if you included in the wiki "The cleavage cutout tag doesn't actually require cleavage", it makes the tag name sound silly and misleading.

    By changing it a hair and broadening it to include a marginal amount of originally unintended uses the tag makes more sense and is more intuitive. It's completely a harmless change.

  • Reply
  • 1