Implicating holding_belly → hand_on_stomach
Link to implication

Reason:

Holding_belly tends to suggest a big belly (stuffing, vore, etc.), but you can't have one without the other.

EDIT: The tag implication holding_belly -> hand_on_stomach (forum #282285) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

The holding_* tags tend to be used for a character having their own hand on the named bodypart, whereas hand_on_* tags tend to be used for a character holding their hand on other character's named bodypart.

hand_on_hip and hand_on_thigh are just about the only exception to this rule. This is rather problematic to fix to the standard, as "hand on hip" paints such a strong image of a character posing with their own hand on their own hip. Yet, I think it should be fixed, for the sake of the taxonomy systematicality.

See tag_group:touching

urielfrys said:
The holding_* tags tend to be used for a character having their own hand on the named bodypart, whereas hand_on_* tags tend to be used for a character holding their hand on other character's named bodypart.

hand_on_hip and hand_on_thigh are just about the only exception to this rule. This is rather problematic to fix to the standard, as "hand on hip" paints such a strong image of a character posing with their own hand on their own hip. Yet, I think it should be fixed, for the sake of the taxonomy systematicality.

See tag_group:touching

This standard is extremely confusing and it frequently leads to "mistagging" because the distinction just isn't logical.

You aren't "holding your hip" when you place your hand on your hip, and while there's clearly a place for a tag that describes a character with their hand on another character's hip, hand_on_hip doesn't make sense as the tag to describe that, the natural understanding of the phrase "hand on hip" is "your hand on your own hip". Hand on arm, hand on stomach, and hand on butt are free-for-alls when it comes to whether the character is touching themselves, or touching another. Additionally, holding can be done with other limbs, such as the feet or tail of a character.

holding butt, hand on butt, and butt grab are a good example of how tag names which clearly describe distinct interactions are awkwardly used to try and define whether it's a solo or multi-character interaction:

• holding_butt generally implies using both hands (or less commonly, a hand, or even the feet or tail) to cup, wrap around, or lift the butt cheeks, a character can hold another's butt.
• butt_grab implies forceful clutching of a buttock ("forceful clutching" is what "grab" means!), a character can grab their own butt, or they can grab another's butt
• hand_on_butt implies neutral physical contact between the hands and the butt, a character could rest their hand on their backside without grabbing or holding onto it.

The same distinctions between holding/grabbing/hand on can be applied to other body parts as well.

While a little clunky, hand_on_own_* tags have thousands of entries, and hand_on_another's_* tags are in the high hundreds, both seem to be the most accurate, most easily understandable way of differentiating things, without a confusing, arbitrary distinction between "holding" and "hand on" or even worse, a three way false distinction between holding_*, hand_on_*, and *_grab.

I'd suggest that those tags be used more often, and the definitions of holding/grab/hand on be changed to match usage and logical assumptions about each tag.

hungrymaple said:
While a little clunky, hand_on_own_* tags have thousands of entries, and hand_on_another's_* tags are in the high hundreds, both seem to be the most accurate, most easily understandable way of differentiating things, without a confusing, arbitrary distinction between "holding" and "hand on" or even worse, a three way false distinction between holding_*, hand_on_*, and *_grab

Absolutely, all of my yes, +100

^^ i think that could work

The tag implication holding_belly -> hand_on_stomach (forum #282285) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.