I'm trying to get a general consensus from folks on how to use ineffective_clothing, casual_exposure, and mostly_nude based on possible mistakes I made when tagging them on posts.

-

• Regarding casual_exposure and ineffective_clothing, I was told that post #2022281 and post #2122180 weren't applicable because these tags require that genitals/breasts be exposed or insufficiently covered.

• However, I felt these posts fit the wikis since the clothing worn doesn't cover the character's genitals/breasts (even though neither character has their genitals/breasts visible in the post).

Summary: Should ineffective_clothing and casual_exposure be used for posts where the clothing doesn't cover the genitals/breasts, even if the genitals/breasts aren't visible within the post?

-

• Regarding ineffective_clothing and mostly_nude, I was told mostly_nude is for when a character is not wearing any clothing that covers their chest/genitals, and should not include ineffective_clothing. Additionally, ineffective_clothing is supposed to be for a character wearing topwear/bottomwear that is unable to cover the character's chest/genitals or when the topwear/bottomwear is designed to not cover the chest/genitals, and should not include mostly_nude.

• However, I thought these tags had significant overlap with each other based on their wiki descriptions, and that both tags could be used on the same post if each of their wiki descriptions were considered applicable.

Summary: Can ineffective_clothing and mostly_nude be tagged on the same post, depending on what the character is wearing?

-

Please let me know if I've misconstrued anything. I'm just wanting to make sure these tags can be refined, and their wiki descriptions updated accordingly, to avoid any future mistagging and fix any previous mistagging on my part.

I'll try to be helpful, but this is a topic I may not be able to coherently discuss in a concise manner.

Ineffective versus Mostly nude

- ineffective_clothing and mostly_nude should not be used for the same outfit. Mostly nude is tagged for when the character is only wearing clothing items not intended to cover intimate areas (neckwear, armwear, legwear (excluding tights), handwear, and headwear). ineffective_clothing suggests that the character is wearing something intended to cover an intimate area, but doesn't.
- apron_only also counts as mostly_nude even if the apron covers the entire front of the character.

I suppose that context does play a role as well. If the effectiveness of a clothing item to cover up parts is questioned or made apparent directly in the image itself, then posts that wouldn't be considered as ineffective clothing would make sense to have the tag.

Example

• Someone getting lots of awkward stares, because they show up only in an apron. That extra context may be enough to warrant an exception. It would likely count as casual exposure as well.

Ineffective Clothing

The main use of this tag for me is when a character's genitals, or breasts are too big to be contained in the clothing they are wearing. Although it can also be used if the clothing is intentionally designed to be revealing. The latter usually also counts as skimpy.

If the character has natural censorship (featureless is similar), then I suppose the character isn't revealing anything and isn't concerned about revealing anything. It may not make as much sense to use it in those cases. I don't want to exclude the possibility though as images can be suggestive without showing the genitals. I suggest leaving it open ended to give a broader flexibility on the matter.

Casual Exposure / Nudity

It is a hard call. I think the wiki creators for these tags wanted to avoid cluttering up the tags with images featuring characters treating fur, scales, exoskeletons like clothing. I don't use these tags very often. I don't know if it should matter if genitals are visible or not, but care should be taken with characters featuring pseudo-clothing, pseudo-armor.

From my memory, I probably tagged at least one image with featureless parts as some form of casual tag. Most of the time the tags don't come to mind. The images don't stand out as easily when the parts aren't drawn and the nudity is fully integrated into the scene. Although there are situations where it is difficult to avoid the distinction created by the nude aspect of characters in a scene such as with characters in the twokinds universe or from the housepets! comics or any universe that rick griffin draws. It all feels strangely natural, and deserving of tags such as casual nudity and casual exposure, even though the official artwork often leaves the genitals out or makes them seem insignificant.

This opinion may not serve to simplify the situation, but the usage of these tags is complicated, and perhaps has some layers of subjectivity involved. A less subjective point of view is "Yes, characters with featureless elements should qualify for these tags". Whether or not some images deserve to have the tags more than others is unclear and subjective.

I would not use ineffective_clothing for "cartoon nudity" characters. They don't need the clothing to begin with, so it can't really be ineffective on them; what little they have is fulfilling its purpose.
Furthermore, if a character is, say, only wearing armwear/legwear, that clothing is not being ineffective, it's just leaving the majority of them exposed (so mostly_nude but not ineffective_clothing.)

Casual nudity is a bit tougher, but I second TheVileOne's opinion on it. I would still try to avoid using it on "cartoon nudity" characters, and would reserve it for use where there's actually exposed bits (or "realistic nudity" that's censored by something like nipple_tufts.)

To help energize this discussion and get more opinions on this topic, here's the current descriptions for the wikis of these tags:

• ineffective_clothing

• casual_exposure

• mostly_nude

-

I'll add my own opinion for the usage of these tags later. I've spent a confusingly lengthy bunch of time already just on making this post (somehow).

After some delay, I've finally got back to this. And sorry for the wait. Here's my own interpretation on how to utilize these tags. I'll try to be clear and concise for them.

-

• ineffective_clothing - Used for a character wearing clothing that doesn't cover their private areas (genitals, butt, and/or breasts) while worn (for sexually suggestive situations and non-sexual situations).

• casual_exposure - Used for a character wearing clothing that doesn't cover their private areas (genitals, butt, and/or breasts) while worn, without being sexually suggestive (for non-sexual situations only).

• mostly_nude - Used for a character wearing clothing that doesn't cover their torso region (for sexually suggestive situations and non-sexual situations).

-

Basically, I feel that any post that meets the conditions described above should be given the corresponding tag.

Instead of starting a new forum topic, I'm adding several more questions I have here since they're largely relevant to the tags mentioned in my original post. I'll add some examples later if folks need visual examples for these questions.

I'm also hoping to renew the OP discussion (since I'm still wondering about how those tags should be used, and would like a more concrete consensus from folks before I update the wikis).

Think of the casual_x tag group as a lack of taboo for x.

Casual nudity and casual exposure are tagged for posts where nudity seems socially acceptable and normal. So by that standard, casual erection would be something like having an erection, and nobody making a big deal out of it.

For example:
post #2222379 post #1888481 post #2127585 post #662568 post #2090297

Pinups should be excluded, since the purpose of those is to show off to the camera -- not casual.
(And I just noticed that someone's recently mass-mistagged casual_nudity for pinups/poses. Urgh, that'll take several hours to clean.)

genjar said:

Think of the casual_x tag group as a lack of taboo for x.

Casual nudity and casual exposure are tagged for posts where nudity seems socially acceptable and normal. So by that standard, casual erection would be something like having an erection, and nobody making a big deal out of it.

For example:
post #2222379 post #1888481 post #2127585 post #662568 post #2090297

Pinups should be excluded, since the purpose of those is to show off to the camera -- not casual.
(And I just noticed that someone's recently mass-mistagged casual_nudity for pinups/poses. Urgh, that'll take several hours to clean.)

My apologies. I had also tagged a decent portion of those casual_nudity + pinup/pose posts. I've been under the impression that casual_nudity was generally for non-sexual nudity, and that pinup/pose was acceptable for casual_nudity if the post wasn't sufficiently sexually suggestive (such as excluding pinups featuring masturbation, spread_legs, presenting_*, etc). I'm also unsure as to why pinup should be excluded from casual_nudity if the post in question isn't overtly sexual.

If it's not sexually suggestive, then it's probably not a pinup in the first place.

Though I'm not sure if general posing should be completely excluded, even though the casual_nudity wiki says so. It's certainly possible to strike non-sexual poses, even when nude..

genjar said:
If it's not sexually suggestive, then it's probably not a pinup in the first place.

Though I'm not sure if general posing should be completely excluded, even though the casual_nudity wiki says so. It's certainly possible to strike non-sexual poses, even when nude..

For pinup, I'm wondering about edge cases where the overall sexual suggestiveness of the post is minimal (such as a pinup featuring bedroom_eyes, where the character is being seductive without being too sexually suggestive) (though I see that the wiki for casual_nudity also has seductive under it's "Not to be confused with" section as well).

For pose, I definitely think it can sometimes apply to casual_nudity (while excluding sexually suggestive poses).

But now I've got some new tangentially related questions. Does this mean casual_nudity is largely excluded from posts with a simple_background (since many simple_background posts with a solo character could be considered pinups)? Additionally, is pinup not applicable to posts with a more detailed_background, such as an outside setting or a room inside a building (since most of the pinup posts seem to have a simple_background)?

d.d.m. said:
Additionally, is pinup not applicable to posts with a more detailed_background, such as an outside setting or a room inside a building (since most of the pinup posts seem to have a simple_background)?

Pinups tend to have simple backgrounds, but that doesn't mean that they can't have any background at all. Vintage pinups usually had some scenery, but nowadays most pinups have completely plain backdrops.

I'd say this as a rule of thumb: if the background distracts attention from the character, then it's not a pinup. If there is detailed background, it usually lacks objects (single bench in a park, unoccupied beach, etc) or it is blurred.

But now I've got some new tangentially related questions. Does this mean casual_nudity is largely excluded from posts with a simple_background (since many simple_background posts with a solo character could be considered pinups)?

I was going to say that there's surely plenty of solo simple_background posts that aren't smut. But on second thought, it is rare outside of safe-rated content. When the artists draw solo nudes, it's usually sexualized nudity instead of casual.

There's always content such as...
post #2284151 post #2267460 post #2285778
...but yes, those are pretty rare among solo/simple_background posts.

Ok, good to know! I might edit pinup to help clarify this in the wiki.

I'm also still wondering from folks about the list of questions I had in the two collapsed sections above (and sorry if it's too long, I had a lot of related questions).