So I recently got suspended. A secondary reason why was because of my use of the thick_thighs tag. So I looked through the posts I applied it to, and noted all of the ones where I would argue the there is no argument against the thick thighs tag applying: post #4893604 post #4650306 post #4650302 post #4314992 post #4422659 post #4422668 post #4459516 post #3946680 post #3960392 post #3960390 post #3960389 post #3965994 post #4106364 post #4266377 post #4299914 post #4299918 post #3926870 <- this one is for both Wario and Samus post #3759775 post #3779446 post #3779449 post #3787181 post #3787182 post #3808630 post #3861529 post #3861525 post #3838003 post #3871846 post #3871857

I have hit the limit of how many images I am allowed to put on a post, and I'm still not done, but have no time to sair more.

While the "if I would call it big if I saw it in real life" standard doesn't apply to breasts, that is because real world breasts generaly lean towards the smaller end of what's possible, so fiction can slant the bell curve to be more even. The same does not apply to thighs, where the average is largely the same because the real world distribution is more even. And if you look at Samus in any of these posts and wouldn't consider them thick in real life, you are delusional.

But some of them are not as thick as the examples on the thick_thighs wiki, but that standard is ridiculous high, bad the examples on the huge_thighs wiki are only BAILEY different. Given the current examples for thick_thighs and huge_thighs I really can't see the distinction. But if my standards where applied, then the distinction would be meaningful.

I was going to sajest an in-between tag for thick_thighs and huge_thighs, but apon forther inspection, such a tag would be pointless, because the current standard for thick thighs is already to close too the minimum for huge thighs.

I would also sajest a medium_thighs tag for the in-between of thick thighs and thin_thighs.

Some of those are... grey-ish but those last two aren't. Those are twigs. I could snap those with my hands. They have a thigh gap so wide they cover different zip codes. Throw them to the dogs cuz those are bones.

A lot of these are just slightly larger than average thighs paired with a thin waist. Some of them I think thick_thighs do apply, like the smash victory screen or the grayscale images.

I agree more with the above two posts, a lot of these are in the gray area between normal thighs and thick thighs, others are pretty clearly average or below average thighs but with armor on.

As mentioned in your other thread Samus or other characters in her armor suit are probably not the best examples for this kind of thing, given that it is hard to actually gauge the proportions with that kind of armor.

None of these really seem exceptionally thick, the last two samples visuals in fact tend towards the other direction

I will note that thick_thighs seems no different than huge_thighs because thick_thighs is used as a basket(implication) for both huge, hyper and aliased big thighs. The only defining difference made is that the huge and hyper require the absence of a thigh_gap. Samples in the Huge thighs wiki also do seem to project more from the body..

As for medium thighs, we do not really directly tag for average size of bodyparts, there is only ever the two extremes of big(+huge, hyper) or small(+tiny or micro; rare); thick or thin; long or short.

regsmutt said:
Some of those are... grey-ish but those last two aren't. Those are twigs. I could snap those with my hands. They have a thigh gap so wide they cover different zip codes. Throw them to the dogs cuz those are bones.

I had to check not just my example post, but also my edit history to figure out what the heck you're talking about. I normally find this kind of talk cringy, but I think you don't know what thighs look like. Unless you have some examples that you convad poorly.

ryu_deacon said:
As mentioned in your other thread Samus or other characters in her armor suit are probably not the best examples for this kind of thing, given that it is hard to actually gauge the proportions with that kind of armor.

None of these really seem exceptionally thick, the last two samples visuals in fact tend towards the other direction

Someone else said as much. I do not get it. Maybe it's my preference towards the thinner side (unless it is done in a very particular way) that is biasing me, maybe it's the wide_hips and narrow_waste, maybe it's me using myself as a reference, but they seem thick to me. I legitimately can not understand how people could think otherwise. If they were 2/3 the width then maybe. But as they are, I can only class them as thick.

post #3861525 post #3861529

I will note that thick_thighs seems no different than huge_thighs because thick_thighs is used as a basket(implication) for both huge, hyper and aliased big thighs. The only defining difference made is that the huge and hyper require the absence of a thigh_gap. Samples in the Huge thighs wiki also do seem to project more from the body..

I mean if you say so, but I still think the difference is to miner to justify separate tags. A problem that would go away if the above examples also counted. Especially the two in this response.

As for medium thighs, we do not really directly tag for average size of bodyparts, there is only ever the two extremes of big(+huge, hyper) or small(+tiny or micro; rare); thick or thin; long or short.

That makes sense. But it feels weird to not put something there.

1eyed-rosd said:
I had to check not just my example post, but also my edit history to figure out what the heck you're talking about. I normally find this kind of talk cringy, but I think you don't know what thighs look like. Unless you have some examples that you convad poorly.

These are not thick. They're just not.
post #3861529

regsmutt said:
These are not thick. They're just not.
post #3861529

Those are chicken legs. Almost literally. _{("chicken legs" is slang for "really thin and/or flabby legs")}

regsmutt said:
These are not thick. They're just not.
post #3861529

yeah, I don't think I've ever seen Ponporio draw any characters that I'd describe as having "thick" anything.

1eyed-rosd said:
...maybe it's me using myself as a reference, but they seem thick to me. I legitimately can not understand how people could think otherwise. If they were 2/3 the width then maybe. But as they are, I can only class them as thick.

post #3861525 post #3861529

For the sake of tagging and readjusting your own view on what "thick" thighs and bodies are, here are some average bodied women to consider and study.

The images you shared here are not even remotely thick. Those are twigs. thick_thighs generally refers to body types at least within the range of this woman.

moonlit-comet said:
For the sake of tagging and readjusting your own view on what "thick" thighs and bodies are, here are some average bodied women to consider and study.

The images you shared are not even remotely thick. Those are twigs. thick_thighs generally refers to body types at least within the range of this woman.

Thanks for providing examples. But look how tell she is! If she was average height, then maybe, but that is a tall bird! I would expect the thighs to be 2/3 the width. I am a tall male myself, and they are probably thicker then mine. I'm willing to except my brain might be rotated by my desire to see porn with thinner legs, but this is en example of what I would consider thick for her height.

I do apologize if I come off as abrasive, but I really do have a hard time understanding this.

1eyed-rosd said:
but this is en example of what I would consider thick for her height.

That's not really how that works. "Thick" is a measure of proportion. You wouldn't tag big_penis on a 20 foot tall character with an average-proportioned penis. Thick and thin, big and small are measures of proportion on this site. Proportionally, that drawing of Bird Samus does not have thick thighs even remotely.

1eyed-rosd said:
Thanks for providing examples. But look how tell she is! If she was average height, then maybe, but that is a tall bird! I would expect the thighs to be 2/3 the width. I am a tall male myself, and they are probably thicker then mine. I'm willing to except my brain might be rotated by my desire to see porn with thinner legs, but this is en example of what I would consider thick for her height.

I do apologize if I come off as abrasive, but I really do have a hard time understanding this.

I am very curious what you consider 'average.'

moonlit-comet said:
That's not really how that works. "Thick" is a measure of proportion. You wouldn't tag big_penis on a 20 foot tall character with an average-proportioned penis. Thick and thin, big and small are measures of proportion on this site. Proportionally, that drawing of Bird Samus does not have thick thighs even remotely.

I get it's personal, but they come off as thick at that height. And I mean that proportionally, I meant proportionally the entire time. I meant it in the exact sense you disgraced, I would even use your very example, but with her being teller proportionally the same thickness is considered thicker, and it intuitively feels that way.

But fine, this site clearly uses a different standard then what I would use. So I'll expect it, but I think it will always be unintuitive to me.

Guess I should brodin my standards thin_thighs then. Maybe add a nother sub size? I don't know. I feel demoralized.

dba_afish said:
yeah, I don't think I've ever seen Ponporio draw any characters that I'd describe as having "thick" anything.

Does this character not count?
post #4977009

1eyed-rosd said:
Does this character not count?
post #4977009

Are you trolling?

regsmutt said:
I am very curious what you consider 'average.'

Assuming you're talking about average thigh width for that height, sense she's pretty clearly tall, I already said about 2/3 that width. But if you need visuals, I think this character is about the same preparations, except for her thighs being a 1/3 thiner:
post #104625

regsmutt said:
Are you trolling?

Ok, no, are YOU trolling? I am willing to except that bird Samus isn't thick, but THIS character?:
post #4977009

No, just no. She is thick.

I think... that I understand now. It's not a perspective that I agree on, but I think I have found the missing context. So for the sake of bridging the point of reference gap in both directions here:

For context:

^^ To be honest, I would say that these are very extreme examples. In common practice, many people would say that these are examples of 'having no thighs at all'. It is almost the same thickness from hip to calf to ankle. If something is slightly thicker, it feels like it's only by scant millimeters. There's almost no tapering, and nothing is considered to be thick. They are thin, for sure. But they are an exaggerated extreme of thin that is pretty uncommon. Which is probably a pretty good argument to have it as a tag.

But when compared to that extreme, then these examples vv below here vv both show comparatively more thigh.
post #3861529 and post #4977009
Again, in common practice I've seen this slightly-more thick and slightly-more tapered amount of thigh being treated as barely defined thighs, slimmer than average, etc. But it begins to have enough meat to actually look like a thigh. It's still very very slim and slight though, as thighs go. So calling it "thick" does not match how most people use "thick". I would estimate it's on the slim side of average thighs.

-

Another thing I noticed through this whole discussion, is that 1Eyed-Rosd keeps referencing the character's height to judge thigh thickness. This might also be confusing parts of this discussion, because I don't think most people judge thigh thickness based on the character's total height at all. I think most people judge thigh thickness compared to the thickness of the calf and the rest of the leg. AND compared to the character's overall width of torso and other proportions. Thighs thicker than own head, than torso, or disproportionately thicker than most other single parts of their body... even thighs tapering outward near the top of the thigh followed by a thick width before tapering back down for the rest of the leg... all of these can be examples of really thick thighs. So we are talking about body size, yes... but their width is more key than their height. Thick doesn't exist without width.

But I'd also add that this is measured within the context as well. It is compared against the rest of their own body for one thing. But also against what seems to be an average proportion size for a thigh overall. For example:
post #4977009
^^ In this, I can agree that her thighs are noticeably thicker than any other part of her body. HOWEVER, almost nothing else on her body has any mass at all. Even areas that typically will have tapering and padding on the average person, are shrunk right close down to her bones. That makes her abnormally thin overall. In an uncommonly thin person, being slightly thicker in an area, still isn't considered to be that thick. Because on an under-average sized frame, having slightly thicker thighs in proportion to the rest of her... ends up slightly thicker than undersized = still really more like average sized thighs. Just like a slightly taller short person... would still be tagged as short and not tall.

And then I would say the examples on the thick_thighs wiki are much thicker... because thick thighs are supposed to be much thicker than average and esp when compared to slim. That is entirely the whole point. If it's a moderate width thigh, or pretty average tapering, then thick_* is just probably not the right tag to use for it.

furrypickle said:
...

Thank you for being understanding. I think the fact I have had a hard time finding images to my preference has cased my intuition to leen to much on the smaller side. I might make a set of average thighs to keep my growned.

I would like a clarification though. In this post: post #4977009 the thigh on the right side of the image is clearly thinner then the one on the left side. Is the thigh on the left side of the image considered average too? Just to make sure.

Also what is en example a non-thick thigh that's on the thicker side? That would be helpful.

Almost forgot to mention. I was thinking of subdividing thin_thighs with micro_thigh for when the thighs are thin beoned realism, and maybe another one for the gray area between that and stick_thighs. Is that good?

1eyed-rosd said:
Thank you for being understanding. I think the fact I have had a hard time finding images to my preference has cased my intuition to leen to much on the smaller side. I might make a set of average thighs to keep my growned.

I would like a clarification though. In this post: post #4977009 the thigh on the right side of the image is clearly thinner then the one on the left side. Is the thigh on the left side of the image considered average too? Just to make sure.

Also what is en example a non-thick thigh that's on the thicker side? That would be helpful.

Almost forgot to mention. I was thinking of subdividing thin_thighs with micro_thigh for when the thighs are thin beoned realism, and maybe another one for the gray area between that and stick_thighs. Is that good?

Neither leg is thick. Both are thinner-than-the-realistic-average (compared to the pelvis width) on a tiny stick body. The very very tiny difference in size between them is small enough to be chalked up to minor perspective or rotation difference.

1eyed-rosd said:
Ok, no, are YOU trolling? I am willing to except that bird Samus isn't thick, but THIS character?:
post #4977009

No, just no. She is thick.

You are nitpicking and biased! Well maybe just biased, but for real though, you might just want to accept that what you consider 'thick' is just not the vast majority of people's definition, and in the end it's you who will have to adapt and look for ways to better filter skinny characters. thin_thighs, skinny etc. are all tags that already exist, and maybe under-tagged a little bit.

mayomancer said:
You are nitpicking and biased! Well maybe just biased, but for real though, you might just want to accept that what you consider 'thick' is just not the vast majority of people's definition, and in the end it's you who will have to adapt and look for ways to better filter skinny characters. thin_thighs, skinny etc. are all tags that already exist, and maybe under-tagged a little bit.

Don't worry, furrypickle already set me straight. And I am currently focusing on expanding the thin_thighs tag. Heck, must posts with that tag where added by me. (I wish more people would use it...)