Implicating tight_clothing → clothed
Link to implication

Reason:

It has to be on something before you can determine how tight it is.

Misc.

• I was going to suggest loose_clothing I-> clothed as well but we don't seem to be using that one.

EDIT: The tag implication tight_clothing -> clothed (forum #234861) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

BlueDingo said:
Implicating tight_clothing → clothed
Link to implication

Reason:

It has to be on something before you can determine how tight it is.

Misc.

• I was going to suggest loose_clothing I-> clothed as well but we don't seem to be using that one.

+1.

I also suggest these similar tag implications:

• cum through clothing → clothed
• cum through clothing → cum
• ineffective clothing → clothed
• lactating through clothing → clothed
• lactating through clothing → lactating
• open_clothing → clothed
• sex toy under clothing → clothed
• sex toy under clothing → sex toy

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:

• cum through clothing → clothed

-1. you can cum through clothing without wearing them. (for example character holding underwear against tip of their penis and cumming through the fabric)

Ledian said:
-1. you can cum through clothing without wearing them. (for example character holding underwear against tip of their penis and cumming through the fabric)

ah true true, good point

+1 to all suggestions except for:

• cum through clothing → clothed.¹
• lactating through clothing → clothed. ²
• ineffective_clothing → clothed.³

¹ Because of the reason already mentioned by Ledian.
² Follow the same principle of ¹, although I don't believe the situation of someone lactating through a clothing which he/she/it isn't wearing is that likely, I think this possibility should be considered.
³ Should a garment that apparently wouldn't be efective if worn, but which isn't in use at the moment, fall under 'ineffective_clothing'?
If "yes" then -1; If "no" then +1.

O16 said:
³ Should a garment that apparently wouldn't be efective if worn, but which isn't in use at the moment, fall under 'ineffective_clothing'?
If "yes" then -1; If "no" then +1.

I want to say no, but the ineffective_clothing is being applied too unevenly to suggest an implication without a massive cleanup and there are too many edge cases.

Bumping this one for further discussion, I agree with the OP - I don't think we can tag something as tight_clothing unless it's being worn. The same can probably go for baggy_clothing.

The other suggestions in this thread seem to already exist, or have good reason to not exist.

faucet said:
Bumping this one for further discussion, I agree with the OP - I don't think we can tag something as tight_clothing unless it's being worn. The same can probably go for baggy_clothing.

The other suggestions in this thread seem to already exist, or have good reason to not exist.

+1 but semi-related, I really wish baggy_* was called oversized_* instead, as it would linguistically work with all kinds of clothing instead of only some. See topic #25324

The tag implication tight_clothing -> clothed (forum #234861) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.