Implicating leashed_viewer → submissive_pov
Link to implication

Reason:

is used when a dominant character is holding a leash that is connected to the viewer's point of view, who plays the submissive role — in other words, the submissive_pov.

EDIT: The tag implication leashed_viewer -> submissive_pov (forum #260005) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

-1. leashed_viewer could apply for example to solo image where viewer character is simply inspecting the leash they are wearing. this is not submissive

-1
submissive_pov (like all *_pov tags) only applies if the other character is partially visible. And the viewer is never visible. There is also no submissive character seen, so the implicated submissive doesn't apply either. And neither does first_person_view, for the obvious reason: if it did apply to the viewer, then everything would be 'first-person view'.

Leashed_viewer and submissive_pov can never be applied to the same post.

Genjar said:
submissive_pov (like all *_pov tags) only applies if the other character is partially visible.

Shoot! I never though of that.

Genjar said:
Leashed_viewer and submissive_pov can never be applied to the same post.

I've now updated the affected posts.

Thanks for the feedback, guys

Genjar said:
And neither does first_person_view, for the obvious reason: if it did apply to the viewer, then everything would be 'first-person view'.

Isn't leashed_viewer an exception though? I was under the impression that looking_at_viewer and the like applied to viewer interactions that occurred through the fourth wall. They're either behind the screen, viewing through a camera, etc, but can't be touched. Attaching a leash to the viewer means interacting with them in the scene's physical space, and also implies that they are a physical being which can have a leash attached to it. Doesn't that make them a character, and thus, a POV?

On a more grounded note, would a leash, as an accessory, count as visible part of a character?

(This isn't a defense of the implication, just the idea that an image can use both tags.)

anonymousanalogue said:
Attaching a leash to the viewer means interacting with them in the scene's physical space, and also implies that they are a physical being which can have a leash attached to it. Doesn't that make them a character, and thus, a POV?

Then it becomes unseen character instead of what we tag as viewer, which would mean that this tag is in the wrong group. But since the character is not seen, trying to apply tags to them would be... problematic. Unseen characters do not count as characters, so they still couldn't be tagged as submissive_pov or first_person_view without changing that first.

And at that point, things get pretty complicated, and the line between the viewer and character becomes hazy. It'd become necessary to re-evaluate related themes, such as solo characters holding down the viewer.
post #1300292 post #1272223
^{_{(That's something that we currently have no tag for, btw.)[/sup]}It's less of a headache to just assume that there's no unseen character if a seen character is interacting directly with the viewer.}

The tag implication leashed_viewer -> submissive_pov (forum #260005) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.