Posted in

#1076 by takata
2017-04-26 at 14:00
< report >#@1074
I'm quite sure there's no trait for that position, so don't use any trait.
#1077 by silence
2017-04-26 at 15:54
< report >Well, the closest is Spoons, I think. It's almost the same, just not on the side.
#1078 by takata
2017-04-27 at 09:26
< report >Spoons would also require them to have their torsos aligned so one character is hugging the other.
#1079 by sakurakoi
2017-04-27 at 11:05
< report >
I'm quite sure there's no trait for that position, so don't use any trait.

Indeed and that trait, which by the by would be welcome since it is actually neither rare nor unpopular, would either be called Rear Entry or Jockey depending on whether the legs are open or not.
#1080 by guest93
2017-04-28 at 15:13
< report >I'd have used Butterfly if not for her being face down instead of face up. In which case, it could be sold as "Reverse Butterfly" :P

If we are at it, why are Reverse Missionary & Reverse Spitroast not a subtrait of their respective normal version, like Reverse Cowgirl & Reverse Piledriver ? Any specific reason?
#1081 by savagetiger
2017-04-28 at 22:50
< report >Reverse Missionary probably could be a child trait easily.
But since Reverse Spitroast is usually FMF rather and the regular is usually MFM they should be kept separate.
#1082 by sakurakoi
2017-04-28 at 23:35
< report >Reverse Missionary and Reverse Spitroast are more than just one party changing position/literary just turning around so that both look actually very different to their non-reversed counterparts

(Spitroast=Doggy Style+BJ, Reverse=Cowgirl+Face Sitting
& Reverse Missionary looks/is rather akin to Cowgirl as well, with just the body not being upright)
#1083 by guest93
2017-05-17 at 11:51
< report >Before that evolves into an Edit War, I request clarification on this one: link , about Girlfriend

In that context, I also request making that description more "explicit" in when to add that trait, since it has an awful lot of mistagging as well.
As I understand it you don't apply it when the character becomes a girlfriend later on (hence why there is no "kissing" trait); so I think it only applies to those that are a girlfriend at the start of the game (regardless of the bf being the prota or not).Last modified on 2017-05-17 at 11:58
#1084 by dinosw
2017-05-17 at 19:41
< report >@1083
I do not want to go into an "edit war", and think that it is a good idea, that you asked the question here.
I do not agree with you in regards to the girlfriend tag, as per the description, I would apply this to any girl which is or becomes a girlfriend, at any point in a game.
#1085 by guest93
2017-05-18 at 10:41
< report >@1084
You know, then you would have to apply it to every girl you would have sexual relations with in all games. That is as useful as a "kissing" trait.Last modified on 2017-05-18 at 10:41
#1086 by traumatizer
2017-05-18 at 11:37
< report >@1085 Having casual sex with someone makes them your girlfriend now?Last modified on 2017-05-18 at 11:37
#1087 by dinosw
2017-05-18 at 12:19
< report >@1085
Girlfriend doesn't necessarily equal sexual relations.
Girlfriend should be applied to those characters whom either are the protagonists girlfriend from the beginning of the game, or becomes so during the game.
#1088 by sakurakoi
2017-05-18 at 12:27
< report >@1086, well, apply the "savage" or "animal" tag instead~

seriously, of course it would only apply to most heroines in specific -ge genres and even there are Nukige and such with high sexual content that somehow have sex happening before actually becoming officially lovers. The girlfriend trait should only apply when...

a) if she was the gf of someone, protag or not at the start of the story (easily seen)
b) if she becomes the gf of someone else than the protagonist during any story (worth to be noted)

in the example given above in #1083, the gf trait should also apply consequently to all the heroines, however the main concern is to actually tell when, at which point, they became boyfriend and girlfriend.

Considering how that trait applies to simply too many, drawing an arbitrary line and arguing would waste massive amounts of time.
#1089 by takata
2017-05-18 at 14:04
< report >Ugh... I can't remember why we even have the Girlfriend trait and the Girlfriend Heroine tag. >.< I would guess they're supposed to be used for cases where the character is a girlfriend for a decent chunk of the story, like, at least a few hours of reading. If the story ends shortly after the characters decide they're girlfriend and boyfriend, it doesn't count.
Sure, Girlfriend doesn't apply to every female main character, and Girlfriend Heroine doesn't apply to every VN, but if a VN is in a certain genre, that tag will apply, and that trait will apply to every heroine, and the tag and trait seem like a strangely indirect way of including that information.
#1090 by guest93
2017-05-18 at 15:39
< report >What ever definition is decided on, the Trait Description should be made clear in that matter.

- Either it is made so that all are marked as Girlfriend as soon as they are mentioned to be one to whatever person
- Or explicit stating the cases in which it does not apply.

Maybe my perception of it is totally wrong, and I'd accept it if that is the case. (@1088 apparently shares my view of that matter)
But I still think that in the cases where the genre makes it a given that all main heroines explicit say "Now we are GF/BF", applying makes it as useful as "kissing" (usually they go hand in hand anyway).
Maybe even worse, because non-protagonist girlfriends would get "lost", and who is whos is a mess then anyway (me for example would always assume that any given "girlfriend" tag would be connected to the Protagonist being the Boyfriend, if not made clear in the description otherwise)

And as said already, then there is the dissonance with the associated Tag, which are usually of the form "This game contains a X heroine (here, the girlfriend of someone)", which applies to that character for a major part of the game, or even the common route.

And @1086 / @1087: It would apply to a "platonic relationship" as well, so forget that I phrased it previously as such that it would be implied / required. ((I won't edit the past comment as it would destroy subsequent context, hence here))Last modified on 2017-05-18 at 15:57
#1091 by infernoplex
2017-05-18 at 18:28
< report >I mentioned this already before earlier here but was ignored at the time. The girlfriend/boyfriend traits, as they are described right now on VNDB, are allowed for a very broad usage at the moment. Though I don't agree with the opinion somebody mentioned back way earlier that there are so many VNs that have characters that can be described as GF or BF. Looking through a good chunk of VNs, I found out that GF/BF tags and traits don't apply to so many VNs that I initially thought in the beginning ... Also, making a difference between a GF/BF from the beginning and GF/BF in the middle of the story is in my opinion useful.
#1092 by thewayfarer
2017-05-18 at 21:07
< report >Producer would count as White-collar Worker, since they're considered "coordinators" and "administrators" for idol management. (Should of realized this.) Can you move that into the meta trait?

Also, just noticed Producer has grammar errors; the trait in question to have it moved. They're marked with asterisks between them. (My bad) And now I can't change them:

"They may be put in charge of *a individual* or managing *a unit group.*"
#1093 by guest93
2017-05-18 at 23:05
< report >A seperate tag for both would probably be a solution everyone could be happy with, I guess.
#1094 by savagetiger
2017-05-27 at 03:42
< report >Horse is just as valid as any other animal trait.
There are horsey characters that aren't centaurs
Nikaidou Akira / Longma / Nanako etc.
#1095 by rider
2017-05-27 at 20:19
< report >Is there any trait for heart pupils, besides Symbol?

I don't think it fits because heart pupils are often something that pops up during sex or sometimes in romantic moments, not a permanent shape in the eye like the trait seems to imply. More often than not, it's not even something that is there in-universe, just a visual cue for the player. It's a lot more specific.

If there's no trait I'd argue I've seen enough people say they like heart pupils to warrant its own tag, though I don't know if it should be an Eye or a Sexual trait.
#1096 by wakaranai
2017-05-27 at 20:49
< report >if it only pops up in certain scenes, then it's not a character trait, but rather artistic choice.
#1097 by rider
2017-05-27 at 22:00
< report >You are right.
If anything it could be a Tag, don't know how my mind went to Trait instead.
#1098 by traumatizer
2017-05-28 at 09:15
< report >Though there are characters with hearts or other symbols almost all of the time, like this girl link for example.
#1099 by december
2017-06-10 at 06:51
< report >A couple problems with Reverse Piledriver

First: example 1 of 2 doesn't appear to match. The description says penetrating partner faces away from recipient but he is still facing the recipient. Picture 2 of 2 appears to have it correct.

Secondly, I believe there is another way we could define this. Compare to the similarly named Reverse Missionary where "reverse" is used to indicate the same position but with the penetrator/penetrator swapping relative postures.

There is an example of this for the piledriver too, seen here in chapter 2 page 22 of the hentai manga Succubus Stayed Life. NSFW pic:


In this case it is the penetrated (girl) who is standing and the penetrator (guy) whose hips are being lifted off the ground.

Our present definition for "reverse piledriver" appears to use "reverse" the way we do in Reverse Cowgirl in meaning the top partner rotates 180 to face away from the bottom one.

In that case I am wondering if a term other than "reverse" should be substituted for "reverse Missionary". Perhaps "inverted missionary"? Using the "rotate 180 to face away" definition, a "reverse" missionary ought to be the guy still on top but lying face-on-feet.

This would mean that the posture I am pointing out from Succubus Stayed could be termed "inverted pile driver".

At present I dont recall seeing it in an EroGe but will keep an eye out in the future. I am wondering if anyone else recalls having seen this kind of posture. The more examples located the more potential argument to have it codified as a trait.Last modified on 2017-06-10 at 06:57
#1100 by skorpiondeath
2017-06-10 at 07:32
< report >First december warfoki would not add other sexual position he has been clear about it.
About Reverse Piledriver woman is always in that position with raised hips. The point about "reverse" is about man position. If the man penetrates on top in a straightforward manner is Piledriver if he rotates 180° is Reverse Piledriver.

About your picture you can define that position cowgirl (also called woman on top) and that's what happening since she is also squatting.
While missionary is man on top of woman lied down "reverse missionary" is about woman on top of man but with woman in a lie position so legs must be lied down man legs.

Following your idea od "Inverted" sexual position, Inverted Piledriver could be a correct definition of the picture you posted (even if it will not be accepted) but I will classify it under cowgirl here on VNDB. Last thing, while Inverted Piledriver is not equal to Reverse Piledriver, Inverted Missionary IS Reverse Missionary.
Just as a personal advice try not to be too strict about sexual definitions which are not the purpose of this site.Last modified on 2017-06-10 at 12:48