The tag implication #34884 diaper -> clothing has been rejected.

Reason: Based off of topic #27468, diapers are apparently not underwear. Hence they are, at the very least, clothing... since you wear them.

EDIT: The tag implication diaper -> clothing (forum #298780) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

Bumping this one for further discussion/voting

I’m going to copy what I said in another thread about this subject, because, even though the topic #27468 rejected, I think that may have been done prematurely. I think the implication may need some more discussion. Namely, do we want to consider diapers to be underwear? This would have larger implications such as diaper_only implying underwear_only and so on, so it’s not a minor change.

The implication, technically speaking, is completely accurate, but some people seem to not want them to be in the same category. However, it’s easy enough for people to blacklist or use the minus operator to get around that implication if it’s not what they’re looking for. Besides, I don’t think anyone is searching just underwear without being more specific, considering that such diverse garments as g-string, bra, jockstrap, and fundoshi all imply it. Adding diapers to the list doesn’t seem especially out of place considering underwear is just an umbrella tag to begin with, and they are a type of underwear, factually speaking.

I do not believe diapers are garments.
Just because something can be worn, does not make it clothing. For example: Watches, jewelry, glasses, ostomy & catheter bags, piercings, bandages, facepaint, makeup, heart monitors, etc. can be worn but are not clothing.

I would consider it a medical device, used to treat incontinence.

kyiiel said:
I do not believe diapers are garments.
Just because something can be worn, does not make it clothing. For example: Watches, jewelry, glasses, ostomy & catheter bags, piercings, bandages, facepaint, makeup, heart monitors, etc. can be worn but are not clothing.

I would consider it a medical device, used to treat incontinence.

The main use is not as a medical device for incontinence, but as underwear for young children. They’re not incontinent, nor do they have a medical condition because they wear one. They simply haven’t learned to use a toilet yet, so it’s the alternative. They’ve also been used by people working in certain professions that may disallow access to restrooms for an extended period of time, such as astronauts or deep-sea divers.

Also note that diapers intended for mild incontinence in adults are often designed to resemble typical underwear. The only difference, essentially, is that they are absorbent and disposable. However, they look like underwear, and besides being absorbent, they also fulfill the regular purpose of underwear. In fact, they’re intended to be used in place of regular underwear. To say that it’s not a garment when it fulfills the same purposes as a garment (with some additional purposes) is incorrect.

If the fact that they’re disposable is an issue, note that cloth diapers are not disposable, are intended to be worn many times, and are made of fabrics just like any other standard garment.

Finally, even Wikipedia calls it underwear.

Diapers are consumables (they get thrown away and replaced regularly) and I'd argue they are very much medical devices whether or not the person using them is incontinent. This is in full contrast with every other article of clothing, most of which just gets washed regularly. I think diapers only fulfill the regular purpose of underwear because it'd be rather difficult to try to have a diaper and underwear in the same place at the same time, so might as well just have a diaper and maybe even make it look similar to regular underwear.

BTW I don't have a problem with whether or not it gets implicated to underwear, that's just my take on it without looking at any outside information or what wikipedia says about it.

pheagleadler said:
Diapers are consumables (they get thrown away and replaced regularly) and I'd argue they are very much medical devices whether or not the person using them is incontinent. This is in full contrast with every other article of clothing, most of which just gets washed regularly. I think diapers only fulfill the regular purpose of underwear because it'd be rather difficult to try to have a diaper and underwear in the same place at the same time, so might as well just have a diaper and maybe even make it look similar to regular underwear.

BTW I don't have a problem with whether or not it gets implicated to underwear, that's just my take on it without looking at any outside information or what wikipedia says about it.

Even so, “medical device” and “clothing” are not mutually exclusive concepts. It can be both.

Insofar as tagging here is concerned, the clothed tag is used in contrast to nude. A character wearing a diaper only is not nude, and they’re not mostly nude (the only other option), so they’re clothed. clothed implies clothing, so tagging a character wearing only a diaper as clothed will add the clothing tag anyway. Really, the only thing this implication will do is cover cases where people forget to tag clothed, or to add the clothing tag if there’s a diaper that isn’t being worn.

That being said, I’d like to reiterate that I think diaper should imply underwear instead, which already implies clothing.

scaliespe said:
Even so, “medical device” and “clothing” are not mutually exclusive concepts. It can be both.

Agreed. Compression socks spring to mind.

I do think some people are getting lost in the weeds here.

Diapers are indeed different than most other form of clothing, but they ARE clothing... evidently. Clothes are items worn to cover the body, which diapers do as well. Whether or not they are medical devices, consumable products, etc. are just other descriptors that apply to them, as well as them being clothing.

I also agree with scaliespe that diapers should also be considered underwear, since they are used in *place* of briefs, boxers, training pants, etc. and are worn in the same location. They're another form of underwear. If we can agree that they're clothing (which seems rather self-obvious), then I think it follows pretty plainly that they're underwear as well. The previous forum post had a lot of replies I didn't agree with, but since the request was denied, I made this one since I thought that diapers being "clothing" would be obvious.

The tag implication diaper -> clothing (forum #298780) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.