Forewarning: There's no TL;DR, so be prepared for an escalator full of text!

I’ve been wanting to go through and clean up the nudist tag for some time now. There are several sexually explicit posts currently tagged as nudist that shouldn’t be, along with other posts that would be better suited for the pose or pinup tags. But I’ve been held up from cleaning the tag due to uncertainty on how the nudist tag should be applied to certain content within some posts. I’d really like and appreciate any and all advice y'all can give on what to do with these:

---
1) Nudist Characters Doing Nothing

---
2) Nudist Characters in Sexual Situations

---
3) Characters with Some Clothing

---
4) Suggestive Situations, Poses and/or Angles

---
5) Mixed Sexual/Non-Sexual Situations

---
6) Solo Characters

Nudist and casual_nudity need to be cleaned up.
Although I am not sure if this is 100% the way the site sees these tags(Nimmy will have to weigh in), i do not think they should be tagged if a image contains sexual content(solo or not).

I'd keep the nudist tags completely separate from explicitly sexual situations, but would allow them broadly for basically everything else. Including suggestive images and poses.

As such, nude people groping each other or having sex shouldn't get the tag (and instead exhibitionism if they're in public). All other situations where a character is nude when they normally should be dressed deserve the nudist tag.

Chaser said:
Nudist and casual_nudity need to be cleaned up.
Although I am not sure if this is 100% the way the site sees these tags(Nimmy will have to weigh in), i do not think they should be tagged if a image contains sexual content(solo or not).

I, too, would be interested in the admins' take, and would be interested in helping with a cleanup project. I feel D.D.M. makes a strong case that nudist is way overused from a mix of "what we know" and simple misuse, as opposed to "what we can see."

(Edit: Oh hey, NMNY replied while I was working on this reply.)

I can see how all the posts in section 5 acquired the nudist tag, because there are many casually nude characters in them, but most of the others only seem have nudist because someone would have gone "Oh, that character's a nudist because (insert link to FA)." post #440924 happens to directly label one of the characters as a nudist, but I forget what the site's tagging guidelines are for that case.

But in the end, I feel like if I were searching for nudist, I would be looking for images depicting society in which nudity is the norm, rather than characters just being nude.

And everything else not otherwise mentioned (e.g. not from section 5 or the post #440924 corner-case) aren't even arguably or ambiguously nudist, to me.

NotMeNotYou said:
All other situations where a character is nude when they normally should be dressed deserve the nudist tag.

The public_nudity tag already exists for that purpose, though.

Genjar said:
The public_nudity tag already exists for that purpose, though.

I think public nudity is only a subsection of nudism. If you see someone cooking while nude, that's not public nudity but probably qualifies as nudist.

Personally I think the most similar tag to nudist that we've got is casual_nudity rather than public_nudity.

Clawdragons said:
I think public nudity is only a subsection of nudism. If you see someone cooking while nude, that's not public nudity but probably qualifies as nudist.

Personally I think the most similar tag to nudist that we've got is casual_nudity rather than public_nudity.

now we can have a discussion about what counts as private nudism
showering nude - probably not
on the other hand, showering nude in a public shower probably counts (not something i would do, for fear of being beaten up as gay, but i've heard it's more common in women's showers)
sleeping nude - maybe?

Munkelzahn said:
now we can have a discussion about what counts as private nudism
showering nude - probably not
sleeping nude - maybe?

I know that plenty of people sleep nude despite not being nudists, so I'd exclude that. I'd tend to think that the tag would most useful when it is more narrow.

Cooking, cleaning, playing video games, reading a book, eating, talking on the phone / to another person... Off the top of my head, if nude, the participant in each of those would get the nudist tag.

I feel like people searching for 'nudist' over 'nude' will want pictures where there's public nudity, without exhibition necessarily being involved. (thought I think that sex CAN happen on a nudist beach, but not all beach-sex is nudist.)

I feel like context is the most important part though -- post #79633 in particular really stands out to me. Where is he? How is this nudist? he could be in his bedroom, his backyard, the middle of Times Square, or even a photoshoot. There's no context. Considering this COULD just be him jamming out to his favorite music, it's hard to say this is nudist. He is, though, nude.

To directly address:

1) These characters are nude. Except the Jay Naylor picture. THAT oen might be nudist. Text saying "nudist" doens't make someone a nudist. :)
2) Most of these are jsut nude. I might give an exception to the yoga-cat, the cook and the girl on her bed.
3) In order: She doens't seem like a nudist, more like she passed out before she could put pants on. The dude bros are totally nudest though. Runner is 'meh", while the covering cat girl seems very uncomfortable with being topless. The 'Tuar... I dunno. I'd say tha'ts more a case of clothing being impracticle. She's got thick fur and it's clearly spring.
4) Again, in order: Yes, because she's standing by a sign that says nude beach. No, because he could be anywhere. She... maybe. In the tiki hut, yeah, she might be nudist, but this might be exhibitionism instead. nope and maybe.
5) Yes, because the group in the back is nudist. Might be-- they don't seem to wear clothes in their world. Ditto.
6) Generally, no.

..... over all, it seems like there might be one or two too many tags here.. let's see...

nude <-- Obviously, for people without clothes.
nudist <-- wikipedia describes it as a cultural movement advocating personal and social nudity. So... nudity, when most people are not nude.
casual_nudity <-- To me, this is the world where no one wears clothing, or at least, no one on this couch watching a movie is. (wiki says "non-sexual" and that 'no one else is concerned')
public_nudity <-- To me, this describes an individual who is nude in a setting where most are not--typically for the thrill of it. May be exhibitionist
mostly_nude <-- Apparently this is for character who's torsos are generally uncovered.

Well, most of those seem pretty reasonable, actually. Though most of the tags seem pretty messy in general.

So, going back to your posts...

1) a - nude ... b - Nude, nudist, public_nudity .. c) nude .. d) none
2) a - nude ... b - nude ... c - nude, nudist, casual_nudity ... d - nudist ... e - nude ... d - nude
3) a - nude, casual nudity ... b - nudist, casual nudity ... c - casual_nudity ... d - none of the above ... e - casual nudity, mostly nude
4) a - nude, nudist, public nudity ... b- nude, c - nude, nudist, public nudity, d - nude, public nudity, e - nude d - casual_nudity
5) a - nude, nudist, exhibitionism, casual nudity, b - nude, nudist, casual nudity c - nude, nudist, casual_nudity, exhibitionism
6) All of these are just 'nude' to me. E is 'mostly_nude.

And that's my 2 cents, anyway.

SnowWolf said:
I feel like people searching for 'nudist' over 'nude' will want pictures where there's public nudity, without exhibition necessarily being involved. (thought I think that sex CAN happen on a nudist beach, but not all beach-sex is nudist.)

Sounds reasonable. Other uses are already covered by other tags, so limiting it to social situations seems like a good niche for the nudist tag.

Nudity within the privacy of one's own home doesn't feel like nudism to me. As was pointed out, plenty of people sleep in the buff but aren't nudists. So I wouldn't tag those as such, unless it seems like a social thing (whole family doing daily chores nude, etc). Though that does overlap with casual_nudity.

..... over all, it seems like there might be one or two too many tags here.. let's see...

nude <-- Obviously, for people without clothes.
nudist <-- wikipedia describes it as a cultural movement advocating personal and social nudity. So... nudity, when most people are not nude.
casual_nudity <-- To me, this is the world where no one wears clothing, or at least, no one on this couch watching a movie is. (wiki says "non-sexual" and that 'no one else is concerned')
public_nudity <-- To me, this describes an individual who is nude in a setting where most are not--typically for the thrill of it. May be exhibitionist
mostly_nude <-- Apparently this is for character who's torsos are generally uncovered.

Well, most of those seem pretty reasonable, actually. Though most of the tags seem pretty messy in general.

Yeah, those have gone through multiple revisions and the current system is working okay-ish.

Mostly_nude was created to stop users from tagging those as nude (since nude is supposed to be strictly for 'no clothes at all'). There's still occasional mistags, but it's not as bad as it used to be. There's also a related tag group under naked_*, but we've been talking about moving those to '*_only' (naked_hat > hat_only, etc) to make the usage clearer.

D.D.M. said:
3) Characters with Some Clothing

Images

post #1336818 post #1097337 post #1007738 post #293143 post #240028

Text

Fully clothed characters obviously shouldn’t be tagged as nudist. But what about characters wearing some articles of clothing, including topless and bottomless characters?

This is what I created the casual_exposure tag for, it's basically the clothed equivalent of casual_nudity since casual nudity is meant to be... well... nude, and they're not exactly nude if they're wearing a t-shirt or something.

SnowWolf said:
I feel like context is the most important part though -- post #79633 in particular really stands out to me. Where is he? How is this nudist? he could be in his bedroom, his backyard, the middle of Times Square, or even a photoshoot. There's no context. Considering this COULD just be him jamming out to his favorite music, it's hard to say this is nudist. He is, though, nude.

I'd file that one under casual_nudity since there's nothing sexual happening here. He's just dancing to music.

Thank y'all for your input!

SnowWolf said:

..... over all, it seems like there might be one or two too many tags here.. let's see...

nude <-- Obviously, for people without clothes.
nudist <-- wikipedia describes it as a cultural movement advocating personal and social nudity. So... nudity, when most people are not nude.
casual_nudity <-- To me, this is the world where no one wears clothing, or at least, no one on this couch watching a movie is. (wiki says "non-sexual" and that 'no one else is concerned')
public_nudity <-- To me, this describes an individual who is nude in a setting where most are not--typically for the thrill of it. May be exhibitionist
mostly_nude <-- Apparently this is for character who's torsos are generally uncovered.

Well, most of those seem pretty reasonable, actually. Though most of the tags seem pretty messy in general.

Genjar said:

Yeah, those have gone through multiple revisions and the current system is working okay-ish.

Indeed they can be messy, but at least they're no where near as bad as the tasteful_nudity tag was. Anyways, here's my personal view of these tag's use. These are also the main elements I look for before I decide to add any one of these tags to a post.

As a side note, I wrote the wiki for nudist (which states 'a character, or group of characters') and derived the definition from the article on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia nudism could include multiple people or a single person in a public or private setting. I didn't feel that solitary nude characters would fit in well with the rest of the wiki definition, since nudism is primarily a social activity. Despite this, I left the character count broad for the wiki entry since I wasn't sure how much the character count within a post should factor into whether or not nudist should be a post.

In short, I think solitary characters should be the exception and not the rule when tagging posts with nudist.

Also...

BlueDingo said:
This is what I created the casual_exposure tag for, it's basically the clothed equivalent of casual_nudity since casual nudity is meant to be... well... nude, and they're not exactly nude if they're wearing a t-shirt or something.

I keep forgetting that casual_exposure is a tag... I really need to remember it so that I can add it to posts regularly! ~>_<~

Genjar said:
Sounds reasonable. Other uses are already covered by other tags, so limiting it to social situations seems like a good niche for the nudist tag.

Nudity within the privacy of one's own home doesn't feel like nudism to me. As was pointed out, plenty of people sleep in the buff but aren't nudists. So I wouldn't tag those as such, unless it seems like a social thing (whole family doing daily chores nude, etc). Though that does overlap with casual_nudity.

That's actually an interesting point. I, personally, am not a nudist. I'm actually fairly body shy, but when I get up and walk around my house in the morning, getting dressed isn't Step One. More often, I use the bathroom and get breakfast started.. Sometimes I do chores naked so that I can just hop in the shower after rather than risk getting clothes stained. This is true of both my husband and I. We do chores together nude. No big deal. I don't think we'd ever go to a nude beach though. What's my point? I dunno. But I guess that for someone looking up nudist, that would be what they're looking for.

(on a side note, that one picture with the person wearing JUST an apron confuses me. That's kinda fetish-y, like fancy underwear, or whatever... and doens't really feel like nudity, so much as... something else. (I mean, I see naked_apron... just, what I mean it it doesn't usually seem like nudism, or whatever. it's more like.. clothing to be scantily clad in. Where the point is looking pretty, not being free of the social bonds of clothing. There are always exceptions though.

This is not an example, I jsut thought it was really cute: post #1333795

Genjar also said:
Yeah, those have gone through multiple revisions and the current system is working okay-ish.

Hahahaha... sometimes, that's all you can ask. :)

Genjar also also said:
Mostly_nude was created to stop users from tagging those as nude (since nude is supposed to be strictly for 'no clothes at all'). There's still occasional mistags, but it's not as bad as it used to be. There's also a related tag group under naked_*, but we've been talking about moving those to '*_only' (naked_hat > hat_only, etc) to make the usage clearer.

I like mostly_nude as a tag honestly. I know that only wearing socks or gloves or whatever is a fetish for some people.

I think hat_only sounds WAY better than naked_hat..

D.D.M. said:
Thank y'all for your input!

Indeed they can be messy, but at least they're no where near as bad as the tasteful_nudity tag was.

You're welcome! The nice thing about cleaning stuff up is that it gets easier each time. :)

D.D.M. said:
Anyways, here's my personal view of these tag's use. These are also the main elements I look for before I decide to add any one of these tags to a post.
...
mostly_nude: A character with some clothing, but still have well over half their body unclothed.

So, where does half_naked come into the picture?

In short, I think solitary characters should be the exception and not the rule when tagging posts with nudist.

I agree entirely. :)

I keep forgetting that casual_exposure is a tag... I really need to remember it so that I can add it to posts regularly! ~>_<~

You should! that's one of the more fun tags of that nature, I think :) Also, thank YOU for looking at such a tricky task!

SnowWolf said:

You're welcome! The nice thing about cleaning stuff up is that it gets easier each time. :)

So, where does half_naked come into the picture?

You should! that's one of the more fun tags of that nature, I think :) Also, thank YOU for looking at such a tricky task!

Most certainly! Though it's sometimes hard to getting started when there's a lot of cleaning to do. -___-

I didn't know half_naked was a tag, but after looking through the wiki and some posts it appears to have some overlap with topless, bottomless, mostly_nude, ineffective_clothing, and casual_exposure. That being said, half_naked does have the potential to be useful and distinct from those prior tags. More or less, it seems like half_naked would apply to characters that are 50% clothed and 50% nude, or if they're reasonably close to that clothed-nude ratio.

It's no problem, I just try to add as many relevant tags I can remember to posts as I see them.

SnowWolf said:
So, where does half_naked come into the picture?

Half_dressed was deemed too messy to keep, and was aliased away into clothed.

Half_naked and half_clothed should probably get the same treatment.

D.D.M. said:
Most certainly! Though it's sometimes hard to getting started when there's a lot of cleaning to do. -___-

I can totally get that TT_TT But it's people like you who make the site a better place XD

D.D.M. said:
I didn't know half_naked was a tag, but after looking through the wiki and some posts it appears to have some overlap with topless, bottomless, mostly_nude, ineffective_clothing, and casual_exposure. That being said, half_naked does have the potential to be useful and distinct from those prior tags. More or less, it seems like half_naked would apply to characters that are 50% clothed and 50% nude, or if they're reasonably close to that clothed-nude ratio.

Genjar said:
Half_dressed was deemed too messy to keep, and was aliased away into clothed.

Half_naked and half_clothed should probably get the same treatment.

I dunno. I mean, obviously we don't need half-dressed, half-naked AND half-clothed.. but I think a 'half' tag would be useful--for example, the pictures with just shirts and no pants...

... Oh wait, we have topless and bottomless. .... unless those imply half-naked or whatever, that does make half-whatever pretty useless.

SnowWolf said:
... Oh wait, we have topless and bottomless. .... unless those imply half-naked or whatever, that does make half-whatever pretty useless.

Yeah, besides the mess, that was one of the main arguments against half-dressed.

Topless and bottomless already exist and have their uses, but implicating both to a single tag was too arbitrary. Nobody could think of a good use for a tag that's basically "either topless of bottomless, doesn't matter which", and if anyone actually wants to search for that they can use ~topless ~bottomless.

I read only the OP before typing this. Then I read most of the thread. My positions are unchanged. I will just add now that the litmus test for determining what is nudism should be asking "would a fully modest person wear clothes in this situation?"
_____

I'd alias nudist to casual_nudity or, if that's no good, to nude. casual_nudity is required for nudism. Otherwise, it's just nude connoting some degree of lewdness.

1. Nudist Characters Doing Nothing

casual_nudity

2. Nudist Characters in Sexual Situations

exposed...? I don't see how most of the posts tagged with this match the wiki. That's doomed to happen regardless of any cleanup. Bad tag name that's prone to misuse.

"But what should be done when a nudist character is engaged in lewd behavior?"

I would argue it quickly becomes very hard to distinguish between innocent nudism and intentional lewdness when a nude character starts doing things a lewd character would do. casual_nudity sets the bar for expectations, and if you're not reasonably confident a character is behaving innocently, then you don't tag them with casual_nudity or nudist because their motives are in doubt. casual_nudity should remain "pure", even pure from doubt.

You do your best to tag the depicted behaviors and positions. Ideally, someone could look at a tag list but not the art itself and infer that something lewd is occurring. That requires one to maintain a broad awareness of tags.

3. Characters with Some Clothing

I see casual_exposure is a tag.

topless, bottomless, partially_clothed, mostly_nude, skimpy, and others should cover it. nude is supposed to mean "entirely without clothes", although "wearing minor accessories" should still fit in with most people's definition of "nude".

4. Suggestive Situations, Poses and/or Angles

Angles are irrelevant beyond the *_view tags. You tag the poses for what they are, if the tags exist (e.g., raised_leg), and tag the intent behind those poses if you know the correct tags (e.g., casual_* vs suggestive et al.). Most situations don't have specific tags, or they are very niche and hard to suss out from poor organization and documentation.

See #2.

5. Mixed Sexual/Non-Sexual Situations

public_nudity, exhibitionism, voyeur, public, being_watched

Try to tag the dynamics individually, so if Group/Person A doesn't care about the sexual activity of Group/Person B but Group/Person C does, then you tag all perspectives present.

You could even tag casual_nudity for uninvolved and uninterested nude characters in the same scene. That will probably confuse people checking the tag list, but it's not wrong.

6. Solo Characters

See #1.

If it's solo + nude + an empty background (most of simple_background), then it can't be casual_nudity or nudism because there is no world. Nudism doesn't exist in a vacuum, without clothes. The post must at least substantiate the barest hint of a world outside the art for anyone to assert ideas like modesty and nudism.

I very likely won't be able to monitor this thread for responses. I am working on other projects for E621, so at least I have an excuse now.

abadbird said:
exposed...? I don't see how most of the posts tagged with this match the wiki. That's doomed to happen regardless of any cleanup. Bad tag name that's prone to misuse.

Agreed. I made some edits to it in the past as a band-aid, but it's still a mishmash. Would be better off if disambiguated and sorted into more descriptive tags (such as accidental_exposure, assisted_exposure, casual_exposure, etc).

If it's solo + nude + an empty background (most of simple_background), then it can't be casual_nudity or nudism because there is no world. Nudism doesn't exist in a vacuum, without clothes. The post must at least substantiate the barest hint of a world outside the art for anyone to assert ideas like modesty and nudism.

I concur. If all that's been drawn is a nude character with no background or other context, we shouldn't assume that it's nudism or casual nudity. Doing so would be against twys.

Nude character with no context is just nude.

abadbird said:
I'd alias nudist to casual_nudity or, if that's no good, to nude.

I'd take the former over the latter because the nudist could be wearing gloves or something, making them [[mostly_nude|mostly_nude]].

After seeing a lot of the responses, it seems unanimous that sex > canon nudism. Additionally, it looks like solo characters should be removed as well. I'll go through the nudist tag and make edits over the next few days. Though I'm still unsure about the consensus on whether nudist should apply to characters with some clothing or not.

abadbird said:
I'd alias nudist to casual_nudity or, if that's no good, to nude. casual_nudity is required for nudism. Otherwise, it's just nude connoting some degree of lewdness.

BlueDingo said:
I'd take the former over the latter because the nudist could be wearing gloves or something, making them [[mostly_nude|mostly_nude]].

I think nudist is distinct from casual_nudity in that it is a predominately social activity. So even though casual_nudity is more-or-less required for any nudist post, nudist focuses on group nudity while casual_nudity could be alone or in a group. Perhaps changing the nudist tag into something else like social_nudity would be better, for multiple characters engaged in casual_nudity. To me, social_nudity seems less ambiguous than nudist.

abadbird said:

2. Nudist Characters in Sexual Situations

exposed...? I don't see how most of the posts tagged with this match the wiki. That's doomed to happen regardless of any cleanup. Bad tag name that's prone to misuse.

4. Suggestive Situations, Poses and/or Angles

See #2.

Most certainly! I wanted to remove the tag from a lot of these posts, but I wasn't sure since they're supposed to be nudist characters within their respective canons.

SnowWolf said:
I can totally get that TT_TT But it's people like you who make the site a better place XD

Aww, thanks SnowWolf! And thanks to everyone out there who tags posts on here!

D.D.M. said:
Perhaps changing the nudist tag into something else like social_nudity would be better, for multiple characters engaged in casual_nudity. To me, social_nudity seems less ambiguous than nudist.

+1. I like this idea.

"Nudist", ultimately, is a personal identity kind of thing, which is always going to be hard to tag appropriately because it's not always a "what you can see" kind of thing. social_nudity, on the other hand, is either in the image or it isn't.

I have another question on whether or not nudist should stay on these kinds of posts. I'm conflicted about solo naked characters in public or in nature. On one hand, there's only one character in these posts, but on the other hand they're casually nude solo characters in typically non-nude settings where encountering other characters is possible. Additionally, I think the likelihood of encountering other characters in such situations would be far greater for public posts than for nature posts; hence I feel a bit less confident in keeping nudist on several of the nature posts.

ikdind said:

+1. I like this idea.

"Nudist", ultimately, is a personal identity kind of thing, which is always going to be hard to tag appropriately because it's not always a "what you can see" kind of thing. social_nudity, on the other hand, is either in the image or it isn't.

For a while I supported the nudist tag and still feel it has utility, but I now feel there's other tags that could be more helpful by being less subjective and ambiguous i.e. social_nudity. I may start tagging stuff with social_nudity as I clean up the nudist tag, though I'm uncertain where this will leave the nudist tag in terms of it's use.

D.D.M. said:

post #1344172 post #290745 post #390202 post #870035 post #1104885 post #1371584 post #1277969

Just to muddy the waters further, some food for thought:
post #1330497 post #1293521

Would flora_(twokinds) frequently be tagged nudist? In images, she is frequently nude while in the context of a clothed society, where even other keidran (even of her own kind) are usually depicted wearing some form of clothing.

I suppose that does make her a nudist, but it feels weird to start tagging her as such because nudism is pretty much a non-issue for that entire webcomic.

post #120567
bugs_bunny seems like an especially awkward example of casual nudity but not nudist, since lola_bunny has always canonically worn clothes - so the nudist definition doesn't even cut equally. But granted, I couldn't find any "real" examples to advance the point here. Though I did get a giggle from post #1299203, which specifically prods at the uneven clothing standard applied to the two characters:
post #1299203

I has me wondering what other Saturday morning or after-school cartoon material had inconsistent clothing standards for characters, that might lead any TWYS definition of nudist to apply in awkward situations. (Sonic the Hedgehog? Animaniacs? Disney? Even setting aside obvious exclusions like Lion King, which is obviously not nudist, I suspect there's fodder for debate here because of inconsistent clothing standards.)

Or there's that whole Zootopia comic Adam Wan has been working on where many of the characters are canonically nudist, and the comic is set in a nudist spa which suggests that the cameos are nudist in the fiction of the comic, but we'd probably largely disqualify the tag because the overt sexual content in the comic's pages results in the images not really conveying nudism over a simple orgy.

The more I think about this, the more I feel nudist doesn't have a solid foundation for being a real tag, as opposed to an alias for casual_nudity.

ikdind said:
The more I think about this, the more I feel nudist doesn't have a solid foundation for being a real tag, as opposed to an alias for casual_nudity.

I've actually been edging that way too. There are a lot of other tags that can be used to better describe things, while better adhering to tagging what one sees.

On a side note, on the saturday morning cartoon side of things.. I feel like it's not really nudist if there's not really any genitals?

I mean.. post #1228803 isn't really... nude. and post #1302984 isn't really giving us an eye full of duck crotch. They're jsut kinda... not. As opposed to post #515111 where they are TOTALLY bottomless and nude (or mostly nude, whatever)

I mean.. cartoon_nudity maybe?

SnowWolf said:
on the saturday morning cartoon side of things.. I feel like it's not really nudist if there's not really any genitals?

Yeah, it seems like a weird corner-case to me, where nudity and nudism don't feel appropriate to tag in many circumstances. Anatomically, Flora from TwoKinds works on the same logic, but post #1359613 is still considered "nude", and it feels somewhat appropriate, I suppose because her breasts are more pronounced than on, say, canonical representations of sally_acorn (the fandom is pretty consistent about her blue vest when she's intended to be "clothed", but the original cartoon was not).

ikdind said:
Yeah, it seems like a weird corner-case to me, where nudity and nudism don't feel appropriate to tag in many circumstances. Anatomically, Flora from TwoKinds works on the same logic, but post #1359613 is still considered "nude", and it feels somewhat appropriate, I suppose because her breasts are more pronounced than on, say, canonical representations of sally_acorn (the fandom is pretty consistent about her blue vest when she's intended to be "clothed", but the original cartoon was not).

Agreed. Hmmm..

post #1381386 <-- cartoon nudity?
post #1379788 <-- nude?
post #1371727 <-- ??

Oooh, we have featureless_breasts and featureless_crotch --both with around 6500 posts.

well, that's good to know, but I feel like it kinda... complicates the nudity thing a bit more. I mean, great tags to have. But... doesn't really cover the concept of cartoon nudity. which is... a lack of clothing without sexual bits. I think.

Hm.

On cartoon nudity,

SnowWolf said:

Oooh, we have featureless_breasts and featureless_crotch --both with around 6500 posts.

well, that's good to know, but I feel like it kinda... complicates the nudity thing a bit more. I mean, great tags to have. But... doesn't really cover the concept of cartoon nudity. which is... a lack of clothing without sexual bits. I think.

Hm.

ikdind said:

Yeah, it seems like a weird corner-case to me, where nudity and nudism don't feel appropriate to tag in many circumstances. Anatomically, Flora from TwoKinds works on the same logic, but post #1359613 is still considered "nude", and it feels somewhat appropriate, I suppose because her breasts are more pronounced than on, say, canonical representations of sally_acorn (the fandom is pretty consistent about her blue vest when she's intended to be "clothed", but the original cartoon was not).

I think it's redundant to have a cartoon_nudity tag since the same thing is fairly well covered by the tags featureless_breasts and featureless_crotch, plus they're more precise by indicating what part of a character's body is featureless. Additionally, nude should still be applied to cartoon nudity, as indicated by the wiki page for nude:

SnowWolf said:
I mean.. post #1228803 isn't really... nude.

How isn't it? Last time I checked, being completely unclothed (ie. nude) applied to cartoon characters as well.

SnowWolf said:
and post #1302984 isn't really giving us an eye full of duck crotch.

A crotch with no genitals on it is still a crotch.

SnowWolf said:
post #1381386 <-- cartoon nudity?
post #1379788 <-- nude?
post #1371727 <-- ??

1. nude (left), topless skimpy (right)
2. mostly_nude
3. topless skimpy

You're trying to complicate the meaning of nudity by adding a genital requirement to it when all it means is "without clothing or coverings".

D.D.M. said:
On cartoon nudity,

I think it's redundant to have a cartoon_nudity tag since the same thing is fairly well covered by the tags featureless_breasts and featureless_crotch, plus they're more precise by indicating what part of a character's body is featureless. Additionally, nude should still be applied to cartoon nudity, as indicated by the wiki page for nude:

Images or animations depicting at least one character who isn't wearing any clothing.

Nudity does not necessarily have to be erotic in nature. The nude tag still applies if a character's genitals and/or nipples are not visible, and even if the character is drawn in a cartoonish manner and do not appear to have genitalia.

BlueDingo said:
How isn't it? Last time I checked, being completely unclothed (ie. nude) applied to cartoon characters as well.

A crotch with no genitals on it is still a crotch.

1. nude (left), topless skimpy (right)
2. mostly_nude
3. topless skimpy

You're trying to complicate the meaning of nudity by adding a genital requirement to it when all it means is "without clothing or coverings".

I suppose the counter argument, though, is that tags should should also generally align with what a person is looking for. Maybe bugs_bunny nude should be a redundant pair of search terms, but it potentially pollutes the search results for, say, lola_bunny nude with any picture containing bugs_bunny.

But hey, I'm good at over-analyzing and over-complicating things, and totally willing to acknowledge that a simpler rule may be better overall. And it was really meant more as a tangent to further contextualize my thoughts about nudist than a serious suggestion to potentially redefine nude.

Although, if we do feel that bugs_bunny is usually nude, there's a good page's worth of images that need to be updated under bugs_bunny -nude. Actually, looking through that, I'd say there's a good number of images that need the nude tag anyways.

BlueDingo said:
How isn't it? Last time I checked, being completely unclothed (ie. nude) applied to cartoon characters as well.

A crotch with no genitals on it is still a crotch.

You're trying to complicate the meaning of nudity by adding a genital requirement to it when all it means is "without clothing or coverings".

Yes, but we're talking about it all in terms of being a nudist. Is bugs bunny really a nudist because he never wears clothes, even when Elmer Fudd does? What about when Lola's right next to him? By all accounts, that's casual_nudity... but is daffy duck's saturday morning cartoon crotch really what someone is looking for when they search for casual nudity?

My post wasn't really about how Bugs Bunny isn't *actually* nude so much as that he's not a nudist. He's not really exposing anything, no one's taken by surprise by him. He's just wearing what boy rabbits wear.

It's kinda in the same vein as how we were all agreeing that a character who is being sexual should probably not be called a nudist, y'know?

ikdind said:
I suppose the counter argument, though, is that tags should should also generally align with what a person is looking for. Maybe bugs_bunny nude should be a redundant pair of search terms, but it potentially pollutes the search results for, say, lola_bunny nude with any picture containing bugs_bunny.

But hey, I'm good at over-analyzing and over-complicating things, and totally willing to acknowledge that a simpler rule may be better overall. And it was really meant more as a tangent to further contextualize my thoughts about nudist than a serious suggestion to potentially redefine nude.

Although, if we do feel that bugs_bunny is usually nude, there's a good page's worth of images that need to be updated under bugs_bunny -nude. Actually, looking through that, I'd say there's a good number of images that need the nude tag anyways.

This! :)

A day later, I still feel like 'nudist' is potentially redundant and replaceable with a collection of other tags... like public_nudity, casual_nudity (and, of course, nude where applicable)

I also wanna point out that featureless_breasts and featureless_crotch are woefully undertagged too (As.... sonic, bugs, daffy and many many others parade around in their fur and feathers regularly and are not tagged with featureless parts. They're also not always tagged 'nude' either. (Oh my gosh, and that's not EVEN talking about My little Pony...)

I'm not saying that we NEED a tag for rating:s nude featureless_crotch or whatever. Mostly I"m just thinking out loud about aspects of the tags in question. I"m not saying I'm right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Just thinking outloud.

SnowWolf said:
I also wanna point out that featureless_breasts and featureless_crotch are woefully undertagged too (As.... sonic, bugs, daffy and many many others parade around in their fur and feathers regularly and are not tagged with featureless parts.

If the breasts and crotch are covered by fur or feathers, I'd consider it to be naturally_censored instead of featureless. Although featureless_* might apply more widely, personally I've only tagged it for barbie-doll anatomy.

Genjar said:
If the breasts and crotch are covered by fur or feathers, I'd consider it to be naturally_censored instead of featureless. Although featureless_* might apply more widely, personally I feel that it's only worth tagging for barbie-doll anatomy.

Wouldn't that depend on the amount of fur or feathers in those areas? A noticeable tuft of it would suggest naturally_censored while a fairly low amount would suggest featureless_crotch. To me at least, it would come down to whether it looks like there's enough there to cover whatever's underneath it. For example:

post #1091099 <- I wouldn't consider that naturally_censored due to how thin the fur looks.
post #1057000 <- This, on the other hand...

Genjar said:
If the breasts and crotch are covered by fur or feathers, I'd consider it to be naturally_censored instead of featureless. Although featureless_* might apply more widely, personally I've only tagged it for barbie-doll anatomy.

Fair! though there are only 1500 naturally_censored pictures out there--another tag for the tagging pile!

Also, Agreed with BlueDingo on the contrast of featureless versus naturally :)

SnowWolf said:
I also wanna point out that featureless_breasts and featureless_crotch are woefully undertagged too....

Indeed, there are plenty of posts that are applicable to one or both of those tags. It's unfortunate how uncommonly these tags are added to posts (or at least, less commonly that I would hope).

Backing up to my previous post...

Nudism is a choice: the conscious decision to not wear clothes, regardless of where or with whom (but let's exclude obvious stuff like bathing). Doesn't matter if the nude character is never expected to wear clothes as long as they could. In our tagging system, I would say a lot of cartoon characters are nude by choice, which is casual_nudity/nudist. We're supposed to strip characters of canon expectations with TWYS anyway, meaning we tag posts as we see them in isolation.

I will say, for cartoons, that some difficulty crops up because the characters are often semi-anthro, and it's usually not possible to infer any clothing norms from them. Anthros, humanoids, and such usually appear and behave similar enough to humans that we will likely subconsciously infer human clothing norms upon them, which is fine and functional. However, semi-anthros, ferals, arguably taurs, and so on don't have bodies that neatly accept our clothing norms, so I find it redundant to even tag them nude, let alone approach ideas of nudism. In other words, tagging a feral nude doesn't add much information--it's a "no shit..." moment--but clothed_feral (real tag) is worth noting as should be clothed_* variants for the other major species archetypes.

That's the issue I've come across when I suggest to myself that Garfield is canonically casually_nude to see if the idea sticks. In a pinch, though, a seemingly bipedal Garfield should be okay if tagged casual_nudity.

@ social_nudity

That's largely redundant with public_nudity, which covers solo nudist too but excludes group nudism in private settings (e.g., at home, in nondescript rooms). Sure, private_nudity could be a tag if covering all bases is important. Why not? mixed_nudity for groups with casual_nudity and clothed regardless of setting? Take your pick.

@ featureless_crotch

Well, that's a very specific area whereas nude describes an entire character. They can overlap. I've never assumed that a character with a featureless_crotch doesn't have genitalia, just that the genitalia has been "arted out" for convenience. casual_nudity/nudist can still apply.

Here's a test: A real edge case for casual_nudity/nudist is a nude marine anthro that's underwater, with no beach, swimming_pool, or boat in sight. Are they casually nude, or is that their natural state in their natural habitat?

post #1339812 post #1315171 post #778905

And, no, I find myself unable to comment on their possible societal clothing norms, so casual_nudity/nudist does not make sense, only nude does.

abadbird said:
Here's a test: A real edge case for casual_nudity/nudist is a nude marine anthro that's underwater, with no beach, swimming_pool, or boat in sight. Are they casually nude, or is that their natural state in their natural habitat?

post #1339812 post #1315171 post #778905

The casual_nudity tag doesn't take into account whether or not they normally wear clothes or live in a society where they're supposed to. As long as they're nude and being casual about it, it's casual nudity.

Nudist would be impossible to tell without reading the character's mind first since nudism is a lifestyle choice.

abadbird said:
However, semi-anthros, ferals, arguably taurs, and so on don't have bodies that neatly accept our clothing norms, so I find it redundant to even tag them nude, let alone approach ideas of nudism. In other words, tagging a feral nude doesn't add much information--it's a "no shit..." moment--but clothed_feral (real tag) is worth noting as should be clothed_* variants for the other major species archetypes.

Whether or not they normally (or ever) wear clothes is irrelevant. If they're depicted without clothing, they're nude and should be tagged as such. Not doing so means having a double standard for what nude things do and don't get the tag, and we're supposed to avoid double standards if possible.

abadbird said:

@ social_nudity

That's largely redundant with public_nudity, which covers solo nudist too but excludes group nudism in private settings (e.g., at home, in nondescript rooms). Sure, private_nudity could be a tag if covering all bases is important. Why not? mixed_nudity for groups with casual_nudity and clothed regardless of setting? Take your pick.

Here's a test: A real edge case for casual_nudity/nudist is a nude marine anthro that's underwater, with no beach, swimming_pool, or boat in sight. Are they casually nude, or is that their natural state in their natural habitat?

post #1339812 post #1315171 post #778905

And, no, I find myself unable to comment on their possible societal clothing norms, so casual_nudity/nudist does not make sense, only nude does.

Though the two tags do overlap to an extent, I don't think social_nudity would be redundant with public_nudity in the way I had defined social_nudity previously. And mixed_nudity as a tag may be a good idea for the purpose of covering all bases (though it's fairly convenient to just search 'nude clothed' for some such posts), though private_nudity is itself pretty well covered by searching 'solo nude'.

Though it makes sense to exclude the nudist tag from these particular marine posts, casual_nudity does apply to these posts. Based on the wiki for casual_nudity it is to be applied "where the characters are nude in non-sexual situations."

BlueDingo said:

The casual_nudity tag doesn't take into account whether or not they normally wear clothes or live in a society where they're supposed to. As long as they're nude and being casual about it, it's casual nudity.

Whether or not they normally (or ever) wear clothes is irrelevant. If they're depicted without clothing, they're nude and should be tagged as such. Not doing so means having a double standard for what nude things do and don't get the tag, and we're supposed to avoid double standards if possible.

I definitely agree with you on casual_nudity, as well as with tagging nude for feral and cartoon-styled characters. It may be common or considered the norm to be without clothes for those characters, but being without clothes is still being nude.

For consideration, because I have feelings and opinions about this and I want to share them, here's something I had previously posted on here. This is what I look for when I consider adding any of these tags to a post, but I'm posting it again here because I think it can be a good guide for defining or editing the wiki entries as they currently stand. I'd love to get y'all's opinions and perspectives on this:

*Note that I added social_nudity to the list since it's been discussed in this thread after I originally wrote it.