The tag implication #34226 diaper -> underwear has been rejected.

Reason: I didn't see this implication listed anywhere, so I thought I'd list it. Diapers, as stated on the wiki page for this tag, are a type of underwear.
While it's on my mind, we can implicate pull-ups_(diaper) to diaper.

EDIT: The tag implication diaper -> underwear (forum #296984) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Hmm... It doesn't seem to be used that way currently, for the most part.
diapers underwear <- 292 posts
diapers -underwear <- 8073 posts

EDIT: It seems it is technically correct though. Apparently, diapers are technically a form of underwear.

^ 62 of those pages are not tagged as clothing, and diapers should be at least considered that.

crocogator said:
EDIT: It seems it is technically correct though. Apparently, diapers are technically a form of underwear.

Aren't diapers usually or at least often the outermost layer of clothing? Specifically for infants/toddlers, who are the primary wearers of diapers in a non-fetish context.

tittybitty said:
Aren't diapers usually or at least often the outermost layer of clothing? Specifically for infants/toddlers, who are the primary wearers of diapers in a non-fetish context.

Only sometimes... obviously clothes for young children are sold that go over diapers. As well, if you argue it's "often the outermost layer," you'd have to also argue that it's "always the innermost layer."
I don't think there's much of an argument to be made for diapers not being underwear, from what I can tell it's commonly accepted that that's a case based on cursory google searches.

I'm not looking to debate this and don't intend to comment further, but there's a reasonably high likelihood that a person searching for underwear is not looking for diaper pics.

Additionally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to put the two in the same category.

I recommend updating the wiki entry rather than the implication, especially since diapers aren't necessarily underwear in every situation.

ccoyote said:
I'm not looking to debate this and don't intend to comment further, but there's a reasonably high likelihood that a person searching for underwear is not looking for diaper pics.

Additionally, I think it's a bit of a stretch to put the two in the same category.

I understand you don't plan to respond, but I will try to refute this argument.
I think the idea that "a user wouldn't want to see diapers if they searched underwear" doesn't really matter. This is a matter of classification–users can either blacklist "diapers" specifically or search for the exact underwear they're looking for.

Most places I look up tend to call diapers "underwear," and I think it fits rather naturally, considering it's worn in the same place and in the same manner as briefs, panties, etc. They're designed in a sense to be worn under clothing, and are essentially always closest to the skin, which makes them an undergarment. People don't wear clothes *under* diapers, but they certainly wear diapers *under* other clothes.

Edit: Also to the point "diapers aren't necessarily underwear in every situation"–... neither is any underwear? As in, you can wear just briefs, or just boxers... at that point they're not really "underwear," but due to how they're designed to be under clothing, they're considered underwear. Diapers would be the same.

The tag implication diaper -> underwear (forum #296984) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Should I submit a new implication of this to "clothing" then? If we're saying it's not underwear, it's definitely clothing.