The tag implication #50716 glasses_only -> wearing_glasses has been approved.

Reason: If the character is only wearing glasses, they are wearing glasses.

EDIT: The tag implication glasses_only -> wearing_glasses (forum #366071) has been approved by @slyroon.

Do we need a "wearing glasses" tag?

strikerman said:
Do we need a "wearing glasses" tag?

Well, the tag "glasses" only says that a pair of glasses is seen in the picture, but not that anybody is wearing them. Same with "wearing_mask" and "mask" or "wearing_condom" and "condom".
So, I would say yes.

demonthedarkhound said:
Well, the tag "glasses" only says that a pair of glasses is seen in the picture, but not that anybody is wearing them. Same with "wearing_mask" and "mask" or "wearing_condom" and "condom".
So, I would say yes.

I guess, but you could extend that to any article of clothing or accessory, and that feels like overkills.

strikerman said:
I guess, but you could extend that to any article of clothing or accessory, and that feels like overkills.

well, since glasses and other accessories aren't considered when tagging nude/mostly_nude/clothed there does exist a bit of a gap with them that does not exist with clothes.

also, in addition to that there is glasses_on_head which is for when glasses are still part of a character's accessorization but aren't being "worn". the question then being "should glasses_on_head count as glasses_only?".

strikerman said:
I guess, but you could extend that to any article of clothing or accessory, and that feels like overkills.

I agree with the accessories, that would be totally overkill tagging each accessory and a corresponding _wearing tag.
Clothing is kinda already considered with the tag 'clothed'.

demonthedarkhound said:
that would be totally overkill tagging each accessory and a corresponding _wearing tag.

Yeah, I'm sure it would. But someone wearing glasses is a specific kink that I believe users would search for more often than other accessories. Glasses can be sexy, but only if they are worn. Glasses laying on a table don't have the same effect. That's why I would vote for having the wearing_glasses tag and then also for this implication.

darryus said:
also, in addition to that there is glasses_on_head which is for when glasses are still part of a character's accessorization but aren't being "worn". the question then being "should glasses_on_head count as glasses_only?".

Good question. When I think about what someone who searches for the tag is probably looking for, I would say no. The wiki page glasses_only also says "used when a character is wearing nothing but glasses.", the question then being: Are glasses being "worn" if they're not on the eyes? But I guess that's a discussion separate from the topic of this thread.

The tag implication glasses_only -> wearing_glasses (forum #366071) has been approved by @slyroon.