Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #12863 is pending approval.
create implication null_bulge (4746) -> bulge (191121)
create implication chastity_bulge (1940) -> bulge (191121)
create implication lock_bulge (2548) -> bulge (191121)
Reason: Null, chastity bulge and lock Bulge all fall perfectly into the category of bulge like briefs to underwear.
You can't have one without implying the other, Dood ╹‿╹)
Related to this topic, Dood~! n_n
https://e621.net/forum_topics/61156
I'm not sure that the definitions of null_bulge and bulge align, actually.
a bulge is a protrusion in the character's clothes around the groin.
a null_bulge, from what I know of it, is an anatomical feature of a character. a lump in their groin area where genitals normally would be on most characters.
dba_afish said:
a null_bulge, from what I know of it, is an anatomical feature of a character. a lump in their groin area where genitals normally would be on most characters.
I tend to think that, but I get the feeling most people view it as something that simply covers the penis. It's very open to interpretation, with both interpretations being valid.
post #5556920 <- It makes sense for a living_inflatable to not have a penis
post #5842992 <- It makes sense for a latex_skinsuit to simply cover a penis
Updated
dba_afish said:
I'm not sure that the definitions of null_bulge and bulge align, actually.a bulge is a protrusion in the character's clothes around the groin.
a null_bulge, from what I know of it, is an anatomical feature of a character. a lump in their groin area where genitals normally would be on most characters.
I agree with your definition of bulge and genuinely believe that it lines up perfectly with null bulge.
Bulge is the protrusion in the character's clothes around the groin. Now there's no way to tell what's
under that bulge. A bulge is a bulge, and if we want it strictly to mean the bulge of a penis, a
separate tag should be in order, rather than keeping the main tag for a bulge all to it's self, ya know, Dood?
crocogator said:
I tend to think that, but I get the feeling most people view it as something that simply covers the penis. It's very open to interpretation, with both interpretations being valid.post #5556920 <- It makes sense for a living_inflatable to not have a penis
post #5842992 <- It makes sense for a latex_skinsuit to simply cover a penis
Personally, I believe bulge should be open to any type of bulge in the groin area.
Doesn't have to be a penis for there to be a bulge down there, ya know, Dood? ╹‿╹)
dba_afish said:
a null_bulge, from what I know of it, is an anatomical feature of a character. a lump in their groin area where genitals normally would be on most characters.
crocogator said:
I tend to think that, but I get the feeling most people view it as something that simply covers the penis. It's very open to interpretation, with both interpretations being valid.
I remember there being discussions in the past about dissatisfaction with null_bulge as a distinct thing from null. What makes null_bulge distinct from null characters? null characters typically have a physical anatomical bulge where genitals would be, as distinct from a character simply having a featureless_crotch, while having a covering over a penis a character may have shouldn't be tagged null_bulge, since you can't tell they're null.
post #5842992
for example I don't think should be tagged null_bulge since the latex is a suit covering Rocket's "real" crotch, where presumably he has a penis and balls. A lock_bulge would make sense, since it's a bulge with a lock symbol on it, but it's no more a null bulge than
post #6073846
is, which is to say it's not.
