Topic: Should null_bulge imply bulge?

Not even going to make an implication request, because I really just want opinions on this.

sragon3 said:
Not even going to make an implication request, because I really just want opinions on this.

I don't see why not, Seems pretty self explanatory, Dood ╹‿╹)

sragon3 said:
Not even going to make an implication request, because I really just want opinions on this.

As a reason against it I would see that the wiki of bulge specifies it as the result of a penis or balls beneath clothing whereas null_bulge can appear in place of any specific genitalia. The null_bulge can also cover female genitalia or be an anatomical feature that replaces any genitals.

Just want to mention that the BUR is over on topic #61158, so everybody can vote on it instead of discussing about it here on a separate thread.

demonthedarkhound said:
As a reason against it I would see that the wiki of bulge specifies it as the result of a penis or balls beneath clothing whereas null_bulge can appear in place of any specific genitalia. The null_bulge can also cover female genitalia or be an anatomical feature that replaces any genitals.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have bulge cover every type of groin bulge
and have a specific tag for male_Bulge instead? Would allow null_bulge to
mean Bulge on null characters and open the door to other classifications
peeps may be looking for, Dood ╹‿╹)

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just want to mention that the BUR is over on topic #61158, so everybody can vote on it instead of discussing about it here on a separate thread.

Oh, That would be a better idea,
Less clutter and all that, Dood
=‿=)

notkastar said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to have bulge cover every type of groin bulge
and have a specific tag for male_Bulge instead? Would allow null_bulge to
mean Bulge on null characters and open the door to other classifications
peeps may be looking for, Dood ╹‿╹)

I'd rather we didn't suddenly widen a well defined tag and make a clunky replacement tag

donovan_dmc said:
I'd rather we didn't suddenly widen a well defined tag and make a clunky replacement tag

Got me there, Male_bulge isn't the best solution, but I wouldn't say Bulge is
Well-defended either. Even now in the past day, I've gotten 4 completely
different but valid takes on what a bulge is.

Ranging from the Bulge of a penis exclusively to the bulge of anything in
the groin area. Perfectly valid but confusing when you try to draw a hard
line on saying null_bulge isn't a bulge. If we don't know what's behind
it, it is really a bulge? Is suggestive anatomy in the groin area 'Really'
a bulge if we don't know the sex for a fact?

Schrodinger's Bulge!

=‿=)~★

But seriously m8,
the separate tag part isn't what I'm meaning to talk about.
It's just the Null_bulge is a bulge, We may be overthinking
this when the answer is in the name, Dood
╹‿╹)