The tag alias #63883 facial_blush -> blush has been approved.

Reason: we don't tag defaults

EDIT: The tag alias facial_blush -> blush (forum #375867) has been approved by @slyroon.

The tag alias facial_blush -> blush (forum #375867) has been approved by @slyroon.

Noooo, how else would you search for only facial blushing after body_blush got implied to blush? blush -body_blush isn't suitable because other parts of the body can be blushing at the same time.

It makes absolutely no sense that I can search for obscure body parts blushing but not the face.

I had a BUR at topic #36851. It's hardly "tagging a default" when the tag is cluttered by so many other implications like foot_blush.

faucet said:
Noooo, how else would you search for only facial blushing after body_blush got implied to blush? blush -body_blush isn't suitable because other parts of the body can be blushing at the same time.

It makes absolutely no sense that I can search for obscure body parts blushing but not the face.

I had a BUR at topic #36851. It's hardly "tagging a default" when the tag is cluttered by so many other implications like foot_blush.

At first blush it seemed like a good alias, but you do raise a good point

faucet said:
Noooo, how else would you search for only facial blushing after body_blush got implied to blush? blush -body_blush isn't suitable because other parts of the body can be blushing at the same time.

It makes absolutely no sense that I can search for obscure body parts blushing but not the face.

I had a BUR at topic #36851. It's hardly "tagging a default" when the tag is cluttered by so many other implications like foot_blush.

"facial_blush" will never be fully tagged, or even close to it. blush has 875k posts and the vast majority of those are facial. All that tag was doing was confusing matters.

If anything, I'd say the body_blush implication is invalid, and possibly even the tag itself. You can't "blush" on your butt by any commonly understood definition of those words, and even allowing for freaky furry anatomy, the tag seems to refer more to a style of shading than anything else.

wat8548 said:
If anything, I'd say the body_blush implication is invalid, and possibly even the tag itself. You can't "blush" on your butt by any commonly understood definition of those words, and even allowing for freaky furry anatomy, the tag seems to refer more to a style of shading than anything else.

I argued against the implication ages ago yet it happened anyway, thus the creation of this tag. I wouldn't mind unimplying it, renaming it to something else and keeping blush solely for facial blushing.

Almost all "blush" tags that are located off the face are misnomers for "flush." English mistake. Only the facial region blushes, and even reddened cheeks aren't necessarily blushing. Blushing comes from emotions and flushing comes from everything else (e.g., physical activity, temperature, illness). But even this is questionable because "flushing" also usually describes just the facial region... because that's where it happens most and is most evident. There is something called a sex flush, which I have seen some eastern artists draw accurately, and I'm quite fearful of how the average tagger would misuse that term once they know about it.

I have seen one artist that puts actual blush marks where blushes don't happen, like a pussy blushing to show "embarrassment," to anthropomorphize the blushing anatomy.