Viewing last 25 versions of post by CruFox in topic [NSFW] How to tag females without breasts - "flat chest" or "no breasts"?

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:

[bq][bq]
 

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


> >
> > >>32718t >>32717t >>3048t >>14723t >>32723t >>794t

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


> >
> > >>6454t

> > 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"):


> >
> > >>30043t
[/bq]
> >
> ------------
[bq]
>
> > Characters with small breasts get "**small breasts**" tag, so examples of those would be:


> >
> > >>22218t >>11018t >>15279t >>11454t >>30240t >>230t[/bq][/bq]


>

 
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

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:

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

>>32718t >>32717t >>3048t >>14723t >>32723t >>794t
also this one because those are the size of male pecs:

>>6454t
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"):

>>30043t
[/bq]------------
[bq]Characters with small breasts get "*small breasts*" tag, so examples of those would be:

>>22218t >>11018t >>15279t >>11454t >>30240t >>230t[/bq][/bq]

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 on 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 orand no breasts
"@flat chest, breasts@" - small breasts only
"@flat chest, -breasts@" - no breasts only

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:

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

>>32718t >>32717t >>3048t >>14723t >>32723t >>794t
also this one because those are the size of male pecs:

>>6454t
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"):

>>30043t
[/bq]------------
[bq]Characters with small breasts get "*small breasts*" tag, so examples of those would be:

>>22218t >>11018t >>15279t >>11454t >>30240t >>230t[/bq][/bq]

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 on 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 or no breasts
"@flat chest, breasts@" - small breasts only
"@flat chest, -breasts@" - no breasts only

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:

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

>>32718t >>32717t >>3048t >>14723t >>32723t >>794t
also this one because those are the size of male pecs:

>>6454t
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"):

>>30043t
[/bq]------------
[bq]Characters with small breasts get "*small breasts*" tag, so examples of those would be:

>>22218t >>11018t >>15279t >>11454t >>30240t >>230t[/bq][/bq]

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 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 on 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 or no breasts
"@flat chest, breasts@" - small breasts only
"@flat chest, -breasts@" - no breasts only

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:

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

>>32718t >>32717t >>3048t >>14723t >>32723t >>794t
also this one because those are the size of male pecs:

>>6454t
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"):

>>30043t
[/bq]------------
[bq]Characters with small breasts get "*small breasts*" tag, so examples of those would be:

>>22218t >>11018t >>15279t >>11454t >>30240t >>230t[/bq][/bq]

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 only
"@no breasts@" - no breasts only

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

"@flat chest@" - no breasts only
"@nosmall 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 on 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 or no breasts
"@flat chest, breasts@" - small breasts only
"@flat chest, -breasts@" - no breasts only