The tag implication #50510 fundoshi_only -> topless has been approved.

Reason: I am not aware of any means by which a fundoshi could be worn on one's top half. Matches a lot of existing topless implications.

EDIT: The tag implication fundoshi_only -> topless (forum #362994) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

Should we use implication chains instead?remove implication fundoshi_only -> topless
remove implication panties_only -> topless
remove implication jockstrap_only -> topless
remove implication thong_only -> topless
remove implication boxers_only -> topless
remove implication briefs_only -> topless
remove implication boxer_briefs_only -> topless
imply underwear_only -> toplessThis assumes these <underwear>_only tags never get tagged for something silly like underwear_on_head, which does seem to be the case. Correction: There are a few underwear_only posts where the underwear is worn normally and an addition pair on the character's head. I'm not sure if that's relevant.

Never mind, that doesn't work because bras are considered underwear.

wat8548 said:
Reason: I am not aware of any means by which a fundoshi could be worn on one's top half. Matches a lot of existing topless implications.

I suppose a small or thin person could conceivably wear a fundoshi sized for a sumo wrestler like a rather bizarre shirt, but that's just getting ridiculous and it probably wouldn't be all that identifiable as a fundoshi anyway.

The tag implication fundoshi_only -> topless (forum #362994) has been approved by @gattonero2001.