Topic: Tag Implication: hug -> embrace

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

ListerTheSquirrel

Member

(post #150446 )

So because of implication in this thread (implication #9919 ): hug implies to embrace,

BUT hug wiki says "For tagging purposes, characters are considered to be hugging when they're not having sex ..."
and "If the characters are having sex, use embrace instead."

so if characters in image (or other upload) are NOT having sex, then tagger adds hug tag
BUT because of the hug->embrace implication,
the NON-sex upload with hug tag also gets embrace tag auto-added.
The problem being same image get tagged with
hug (for uploads withOUT sex)
and embrace (for uploads WITH sex)

arg???

Updated

darryus

Member

listerthesquirrel said:
(post #150446 )

So because of implication in this thread (implication #9919 ): hug implies to embrace,

BUT hug wiki says "For tagging purposes, characters are considered to be hugging when they're not having sex ..."
and "If the characters are having sex, use embrace instead."

so if characters in image (or other upload) are NOT having sex, then tagger adds hug tag
BUT because of the hug->embrace implication,
the NON-sex upload with hug tag also gets embrace tag auto-added.
The problem being same image get tagged with
hug (for uploads withOUT sex)
and embrace (for uploads WITH sex)

arg???

just remove "instead" from the wiki pages? it'd be better to have a tag that's a catchall for all embraces rather than removing the implication.

maplebytes

Privileged

I don't know how this implication was approved or had so many positive votes, it doesn't really make sense:

  • If an embrace was intended for hugging within a sexual situation, then all hugs cannot be embraces
  • As far as dictionary definitions go, "embrace" and "hug" are synonyms, so following that logic, embrace should be aliased to hug, there's no reason for both tags to exist, there is no embrace that is not a hug

Embrace clearly didn't do a good enough job at clearly defining itself as "a character hugging their partner during sexual contact", so I went ahead and made a hugging_during_sex tag, the name is a little clunky, but it eliminates any ambiguity about what the tag is for.

SNPtheCat

Member

Ok, I'm a couple months late to this, but since hug is unimplied from embrace, should hugging during sex be aliased to embrace since it was made to differentiate between hug and it's explicit version.

Wandering Spaniel

Janitor

-1 because I'd prefer we alias hug to embrace (or vice versa). They're synonyms and us attaching other meanings to them is confusing for taggers and for searchers. Then we can keep hugging_during_sex, a much clearer name, for hugging/embracing during sex.

Also I wouldn't really mind if hugging_during_sex implied hug/embrace, as people could still search hug -hugging_during_sex (yes technically wouldn't work for every multiple_images or group scene but I think it'd return the results people searching that are looking for). But that's a separate thing that may need additional discussion

Updated

Pup

Privileged

I'm not sure which thread is the best place to post given there's several about hug, cuddling and embrace, but I often find them quite confusing and imagine a lot of other users use them interchangably when tagging.

As far as I know there's:
hug for standing.
cuddling for lying down, being more intimate.
embrace for either of those while having sex.

Though given others likely tag them interchangeably I always ending up searching ~hug ~cuddling ~embrace, and it'd be nice if there was an umbrella term that was implied with all of them to make searching easier.

wandering_spaniel said:
-1 because I'd prefer we alias hug to embrace (or vice versa). They're synonyms and us attaching other meanings to them is confusing for taggers and for searchers. Then we can keep hugging_during_sex, a much clearer name, for hugging/embracing during sex.
[..]

I think that'd be good, but I'd also likely add cuddling to the alias as well. It'd be easier to search embrace lying -sex rather than ~hug ~cuddling ~embrace lying -sex just to make sure you're seeing them all.

Kyiiel

Member

Not all hugs are an embrace, that dictionary is wrong.

For example, a huddle in sports is a type of group hug, but is not an embrace.

Maryland P Sevenson

Member

kyiiel said:
Not all hugs are an embrace, that dictionary is wrong.

For example, a huddle in sports is a type of group hug, but is not an embrace.

we wouldn't tag a huddle as a hug.

Lafcadio

Janitor

kyiiel said:
Not all hugs are an embrace, that dictionary is wrong.

For example, a huddle in sports is a type of group hug, but is not an embrace.

Sounds like prescriptivism to me. I completely disagree with the notion that a huddle is a hug.
Can you define "hug" in such a way that includes all things that are hugs and excludes all things that are not?

Kyiiel

Member

lafcadio said:
Sounds like prescriptivism to me. I completely disagree with the notion that a huddle is a hug.
Can you define "hug" in such a way that includes all things that are hugs and excludes all things that are not?

Yes. A hug is a position in which which one person puts one or both arms around the neck, back, or waist of another and holds them closely. If more than two people are involved, it may be referred to as a group hug.

Most of the time this is a form of endearment. However this is not always the case. In addition to a huddle, there is also the bear hug. Sometimes a bear hug is a sign of endearment post #4485481 post #1056641, and other times it is a grappling maneuver used to immobilize or take down an opponent. post #1752083 post #2388397

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_hug
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hug

Edit: There also exists a side hug/half hug, which is also usually a form of endearment, but is not usually intimate enough to be considered an embrace: post #3024237

Updated

  • 1