[NSFW] How to tag females without breasts - "flat chest" or "no breasts"?

Currently the tag "flat chest" is used for females that have no breasts at all. It was brought up on Discord that flat chest is understood by some people as meaning that there are breasts present but are they are just small (small breasts ) like in "delicious flat chest", and that the "flat chest" tag should not be used for "small breasts" no breasts at all (^{edited this part as this was a mistake}) but it should be an alias of "small breasts". The user suggested that for females characters without any visible breasts at all there should be other tag used: "no breasts".

What do you think about this issue?


EDIT: For more detailed explanation see also this mine post from this thread: https://furbooru.org/forums/tagging/topics/nsfw-how-to-tag-females-without-breasts-flat-chest-or-no-breasts?post_id=12117#post_12117

uhh, I accidentally voted for the wrong option and chose flat chest instead of no breast

Imo, just tag nothing on them. Only tag flat chest if the character has breasts anyway. :P

@LightningBolt
That is not a good solution. Sometimes breasts are there but are just not visible because something is obstructing the view or the character is seen from the rear or it is just a portrait or the character is partly offscreen. The "no breasts"/"flat chest" tag is intended for situations where the chest is visible and there are no breasts there.

I prefer flat chest personally. I understand no breast is supposed to be no breast I just feel though that ultra small breasts should still apply like instances below:

Or when it's no breasts because we can't see them under clothes like:

@Fleetfoot

I just feel though that ultra small breasts should still apply like instances below:

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

I would rather see such tag only for cases when they are not pointy at all

But this is also view from the front so it's hard to really tell.

I agree with the "can't see under clothes" part.

I say other, since if it's a species that doesn't have breast and the artist isn't giving them breast, than it shouldn't be given a breast tag. Does that make sense?

@Nicelucario
This is not a good solution because the place where the breasts are can be just out of frame or invisible because the character is seen from rear, examples:
^{for the 2nd one take only the upper part into consideration}


Also there is a lot of images where breasts are visible but they are not tagged with the "breasts" tag (they still need this tag but nobody added it, they are undertagged, it should be added).

I think a-cups and below make sense to tag as "flat chest."

I think characters/species that normally don't have breasts can also be tagged as "flat chest," as tagging "no breasts" seems redundant in this situation. It would either be tagged alongside "flat chest," or pulling double duty for that tag and cause a headache of mutual exclusivity.

I think "no breasts" has a better use case in situations where a character that would ordinarily have breasts magically finds themselves flat-chested for whatever reason. I see no reason otherwise to have that tag.

I'm not really happy with that poll prompt, it contains two premises. Why would you put no breasts and small breasts into one pot? They should stay separated.

No breasts shouldn't need to be tagged at all. Such as the picture in the opening post. No nipples, no areola, no visible bumps that would be different to males or whatever. There's simply nothing and we shouldn't tag nothing in that case.


Flat chests should be for visible breasts. I would suggest that it should include:
• Literally flat chest line but with nipples or areola on them.
• Clothed humanoids where you would expect breasts but them being totally or close to totally flat.
• Small bumps which wouldn't even need a bra ranging from areola bumps up to slight elevation of the breasts.
Like in those already posted examples:

Would this be implied by a "Non-Mammalian" tag?

@Moon Flower
That's what I was thinking.

@Anonymous #8D5F
Only if we get a tag for breast on non-mammals.

@Nicelucario

Non-Mammalian Breast Tissue: Let's make it sound as clinical as possible just for fun!

I may have worded the opening (first) post of this thread in a bit too confusing way (and I also made one mistake there, the part that is now struck through). I will try to fix that.

The current situation is like this:

Characters with no breasts at all get "flat chest" tag. They might have nipples. Examples:

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

also this one because those are the size of male pecs:

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

also this one because it doesn't look like like there is any bump under this bra (although from the text in the speech bubble it would seem that breasts are there but just so flat that they "disappear"):

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

——————

Characters with small breasts get "small breasts" tag, so examples of those would be:

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

The question is: Should the meaning of "flat chest" be changed to be for things that are under the "small breasts" tag right now and then a new tag like "no breasts" should be created for things like in my examples for current "flat chest" tag? So then it would be like that:

"flat chest" = "small breasts" — small breasts only
"no breasts" — no breasts only

or should it stay like it is defined right now, so:

"flat chest" — no breasts only
"small breasts" — small breasts only

But now from the comments posted above I see that there might be more than those two options as "flat chest" could work for both "small breasts" and "no breasts" so that those two things would be under one tag. This is not what I proposed but it's one option of changing the meaning of those tags. Then searching for characters actually lacking any breasts would then require searching for "flat chest, -breasts" and the "no breasts" tag would not be needed at all. So in this other variant it would be:

"flat chest" — both small breasts and no breasts
"flat chest, breasts" — small breasts only
"flat chest, -breasts" — no breasts only

@CruFox
I rather that flat chest be used in situations where a female has a flat chest but is in a species that would have breast, like in an image with two females of the same species but one has normal breasts while the other is flat as a board.

@Nicelucario
This is a reptile so they naturally don't have any breasts:

And this is a charr, all females of this species don't have breasts:


How should those be tagged?

@CruFox
Do the artist usually give them mammal-like breast?

@Nicelucario
Those are characters/species from official franchises. The first one is a dragon from MLP and the second one is an OC from a species from Guild Wars. The canonical form of females of this species do not have breasts at all.

@CruFox
I've been on the internet long enough to know that species originally not having breast are often given them in far art, hence why I say it should be base on the artist and if there's anything else in the image, which the "no breasts" as the default if there's no evidence suggesting it's a species with human-like breasts.

@Nicelucario
When tagging an image only that one image should be considered (unless it's a part of a set, series, comic, etc.) and not how the artist draws other things.

@CruFox
True. If people didn't give non-mammals human breast, this would be much easier.

I stand by what I said regarding "flat chest" referring to a-cups and below. I have no problem with "small breasts" being used to refer to A-C cups at the uploader's discretion, within reason (not washboard flat or "relatively small by furry porn standards").

I would prefer that cases where a character/species that usually has breasts being pictured without them ("no breasts") and vice versa, a character/species that normally doesn't being emboobened be treated the same way: only tag the presence or absence when it is a deviation from the norm. Much the same way you wouldn't normally tag lips on a human but you sure would on a bird.

@Wingbeat

I stand by what I said regarding "flat chest" referring to a-cups and below. I have no problem with "small breasts" being used to refer to A-C cups at the uploader's discretion, within reason (not washboard flat or "relatively small by furry porn standards").

I don't know anything about cup sizes either irl or in art so those letters like A or C don't tell me anything.

@Wingbeat

I would prefer that cases where a character/species that usually has breasts being pictured without them ("no breasts") and vice versa, a character/species that normally doesn't being emboobened be treated the same way: only tag the presence or absence when it is a deviation from the norm. Much the same way you wouldn't normally tag lips on a human but you sure would on a bird.

Reptiles don't usually have breasts, at least in real life, but in furry art it's hard to tell. Probably most do because there is a bunch of people who like breasts in their furry art (but I am not one of them :P).

not the greatest reference in the world, but the best I could find:

Cup sizes are always relative to the difference between underbust and over the bust circumferences anyways. I wouldn't use cup sizes to determine that stuff.

Here an example from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra_size)

These are equivalent UK cup volumes.

The comparison to head size is easier and makes more sense in most cases to the viewers.

Defining stuff through cup sizes will be… problematic and chaotic.