The condition where breasts are joined in the middle, as in:
http://e621.net/post/show/208764
and a lot of other posts.

Maybe we can get people to start tagging sagging breasts as well.

Do most people know what that word is, and is it even going to be usefull other then to the random few who know what it is?

I didnt know such a word existed lol

I like it

Murmillos said:
Do most people know what that word is, and is it even going to be usefull other then to the random few who know what it is?

I didn't know what heterochromia was until I came here, as well as that term for reverse body marking (dark belly, light fur) which I escapes me at the moment.

Perhaps a mod can chime in.

Unless you have a better term for it, I vote to keep it.

Though I honestly don't see it in your example pic, you should probably bring up a more distinct image.

Acolyte said:
that term for reverse body marking (dark belly, light fur) which I escapes me at the moment.

reverse_countershading

Lyokira said:
Unless you have a better term for it, I vote to keep it.

Though I honestly don't see it in your example pic, you should probably bring up a more distinct image.

It's a bit difficult to find a better example, without going through a shitload of posts. It's easier to show what it doesn't look like:

http://e621.net/post/show/208998

Which is how most breasts are drawn, I'd say. With a clear defining line between the two. Symmastia in real life looks more like the first example, with a band of flesh arching at the bottom between the breasts.

Acolyte said:
It's a bit difficult to find a better example, without going through a shitload of posts. It's easier to show what it doesn't look like:

http://e621.net/post/show/208998

Which is how most breasts are drawn, I'd say. With a clear defining line between the two. Symmastia in real life looks more like the first example, with a band of flesh arching at the bottom between the breasts.

Still hard to see from your first example frankly, it could be merely a trick of shading and angle.

I've heard of a unibrow, but a unibreast? Although, I admit the real thing probably isn't as extreme as the pictures "unibreast" conjures up.

Personally, I think this might be a bit of an overkill except with pictures that are blatantly "unibreast-ish", but I also don't know the frequency symmastia comes up on e621 or if it will matter to enough people to make it worthwhile. I guess, if there's enough pictures to warrant having such a tag, go ahead and add it to appropriate pictures. Maybe it'll catch on. Just be sure to write up an entry on the wiki so the curious can find out what it is.

So are we going to need a degree in latin and wonky terms nobody's ever heard to to search on e6 soon or what?

Mechaniatrix said:
So are we going to need a degree in latin and wonky terms nobody's ever heard to to search on e6 soon or what?

Well, unless you have a better name for it..

Latin is now a living language.

Lyokira said:
Well, unless you have a better name for it..

How about a more colloquial "uniboob" or "unibreast"? Or maybe "conjoined_breasts"?

Test-Subject_217601 said:
"conjoined_breasts"

I vote this. Not as potentially offensive as "uniboob", not as obscure as "symmastia". It also seems like a phrasing that both sides would recognize.

Edit: Like others, I don't really see what you're referring to in your first example. You say you don't want to go trawling through lots of images to find a good example, that makes it sound like this tag will potentially be problematic.

Edit edit: Here's a patient-authored article about their experience with post-implant symmastia: http://www.implantinfo.com/media/news/Proper-Symmastia-Repair.aspx (it includes pictures)

I still don't see it in post #208764.

Lyokira said:
Well, unless you have a better name for it..

conjoined_breasts, as said before. Since it's actually English and a more sensical term than some weirdass medical term. I mean, after this, are we going to start tagging "sex" as "coitus" and "canine" as "order_canus"? Seriously.

The Uniboob: http://www.bricaran.com/reboot/dotdiner.jpg

ikdind said:
You say you don't want to go trawling through lots of images to find a good example, that makes it sound like this tag will potentially be problematic.

I still don't see it in post #208764.

it's not so commonly drawn by artists that it's easy to find here. but isn't that one of the benefits of tags, that you can easily find images of interest to you without having to search through hundreds of images?

there doesn't need to be hundreds of examples of the condition for the tag to be useful.

I've seen in person a few real world natural examples of symmastia. women with the natural condition resemble the example I provided.

Mechaniatrix said:
conjoined_breasts, as said before. Since it's actually English and a more sensical term than some weirdass medical term. I mean, after this, are we going to start tagging "sex" as "coitus" and "canine" as "order_canus"? Seriously.

Just for note, it wasn't said before.

Lyokira said:
Just for note, it wasn't said before.

Reread the thread. It was.

Acolyte said:
it's not so commonly drawn by artists that it's easy to find here. but isn't that one of the benefits of tags, that you can easily find images of interest to you without having to search through hundreds of images?

Fair enough. I'm still voting for "conjoined_breasts", though.

Mechaniatrix said:
conjoined_breasts, as said before. Since it's actually English and a more sensical term than some weirdass medical term. I mean, after this, are we going to start tagging "sex" as "coitus" and "canine" as "order_canus"? Seriously.

Have you been here long? Some of the "wierdass" terms used here are:

heterochromia
phimosis
many different "phobes" and "philes"
tribadism
sounding
fursecution(?)
And of course fellatio and cunnilingus.

As well as all the scientific terms for animals and different animal parts, types of fetishes, art techniques, states of mind, so on and so on.

And truthfully, I can't think of a more pleasant way to learn obscure scientific terminology than to put it next to porn.

Acolyte said:
And truthfully, I can't think of a more pleasant way to learn obscure scientific terminology than to put it next to porn.

Hear hear!

Acolyte said:
-snip-

Yes, yes I have 'been here long'.

Some of those terms are fine. But none of them are so sheerly obscure as this one (except phimosis, I had to google that shit). The whole thing has...what, maybe ONE example? Two?

And honestly, ask yourself. If Joe Blow comes in off the street and decides 'hey, I wanna look at chicks with a unitit' then is he going to type in "Symmastia"? That is what ANYONE should ask themselves before even entertaining the thought of changing tags.

Mechaniatrix said:
Reread the thread. It was.

The first instance of it mentioned was a reply to my query by Test-Subject 217601. Unless you can claim an earlier instance of it being mentioned, I don't see it.

Lyokira said:
The first instance of it mentioned was a reply to my query by Test-Subject 217601. Unless you can claim an earlier instance of it being mentioned, I don't see it.

He was referring to that instance. :V

Mechaniatrix said:

And honestly, ask yourself. If Joe Blow comes in off the street and decides 'hey, I wanna look at chicks with a unitit' then is he going to type in "Symmastia"? That is what ANYONE should ask themselves before even entertaining the thought of changing tags.

It was very unlikely that anyone would have typed in the term heterochromia when searching for an image here. But now, they do, because they've been introduced to the term.

Mech, this isn't about changing tags. It's about adding a new tag for a physical attribute that no one was tagging before.

Like the rules say, tag what you see. So whether it's called symmastia, or uniboob, or conjoined breasts, I think adding this tag falls in line with standard site use and rules.

And do users really type in tags more often than they click on items in the list of tags to see more examples of images that interest them? I'd say the latter.

Acolyte said:
And do users really type in tags more often than they click on items in the list of tags to see more examples of images that interest them? I'd say the latter.

The thing about clicking is that unless they know what the tag means, they're less likely to click regardless.

Lyokira said:
The thing about clicking is that unless they know what the tag means, they're less likely to click regardless.

not necessarily. I'll bet a lot of users click out of curiosity about an unfamiliar word.

Scientific terms arent obscure, they're ACCURATE.
Never defy SCIENCE!
(pardon the largely unproductive post, that just had to be)

Vagabond said:
Scientific terms arent obscure, they're ACCURATE.
Never defy SCIENCE!
(pardon the largely unproductive post, that just had to be)

Layman's terms are best terms. :V

I'd suggest tagging homo_sapiens but people are likely to misinterpret that. :V

Lyokira said:
I'd suggest tagging homo_sapiens but people are likely to misinterpret that. :V

Please forgive me, but I'm having trouble figuring out whether you're being serious or not in the context of this thread. There is already a human tag, meant for homo sapiens.

Acolyte said:
not necessarily. I'll bet a lot of users click out of curiosity about an unfamiliar word.

This is true. The bigger problem is people simply wouldn't know to tag it, that'll affect the term no matter what it is. The solution is to link it under the breasts page.

I definitely prefer more tags than fewer, though I'd be against inventing words when one already exists. Heterochromia is my favorite example, and it has such tags as "multi_colour_eyes" aliased to it.

We'll use the e621 layman's term if it exists (e.g. pussy, balls), or the most common term to describe what we're talking about if not (heterochromia). So symmastia sounds perfectly fine, at least for cases where it's not a single mass with two nipples, but maybe that too (which is what "unibreast" conjures up).

ThenIThought said:
I definitely prefer more tags than fewer, though I'd be against inventing words when one already exists. Heterochromia is my favorite example, and it has such tags as "multi_colour_eyes" aliased to it.

Wouldn't multicoloured eyes be when each eye is more than one colour? Sort of like rainbow_eyes?

ikdind said:
Please forgive me, but I'm having trouble figuring out whether you're being serious or not in the context of this thread. There is already a human tag, meant for homo sapiens.

The emoticon didn't clue you odd to the sarcasm?

Lyokira said:
The emoticon didn't clue you odd to the sarcasm?

Actually, no. I have no idea what ":V" is supposed to mean. I'm guessing there's some cultural reference I'm missing.

ikdind said:
Actually, no. I have no idea what ":V" is supposed to mean. I'm guessing there's some cultural reference I'm missing.

I don't either. I see a lot of emoticons floating around and I'm just like "oh. It's a face of some kind." but manage to derive no actual meaning from it. To me, :V just looks like a face with an open mouth. So

What I see: ...words words words [emoticon of someone talking]
What I think: Oh, haha, they said things and then had a face of someone saying things. OK.

I always thought it was the author acknowledging the sarcastic and/or nonsensical nature of a satiric comment.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%3AV

Apparently it's intentionally ambiguous.

It also functions as a sort of non-sequitir; I've seen it used when a person can't think of something clever to say in online conversation.

:V

I always figured it indicated sarcasm, mockery or that what's being said is so obvious it shouldn't even need to be said.