Example: post #622698.

Uh, 69?

I was going to say 69 as well, but that has clear sexual connotations. Is there any way for us to expand that?

A sexual position where each partner has the other's crotch in their face.

Quite clear sexual connotations. If 69 is the closest thing out there, how about creating a new tag for cases like this? Neither of the posts in rating:s 69 (excluding the mess in post #452567) fits the post I cited.

They don't have to really be that close to each other, either. Being upside down relative to each other with heads being about on same level with waists is probably good enough.

Do they have to be facing each other, or do things like post #396529 count as well?

Call it something like rotational_symmetry to have it inline with the symmetry tag?

Soljashy said:
Do they have to be facing each other, or do things like post #396529 count as well?

Facing each other is what I had in mind, but I guess we might as well lump the two ideas together, for the time being if nothing else.

NWF_Renim said:
Call it something like rotational_symmetry to have it inline with the symmetry tag?

Rotational symmetry works for me. I'm wondering if that might imply something too general for someone else, but I can't think of anything myself.

Another thing to consider is whether or not to implicate 69 to this new tag since basically everything in that tag meets this one's definition. Like you've noted, though, it has a much different connotation and more specific definition.

An implication might swamp out anything clean and interesting from the tag though, so it might not be the best idea.

rotational symmetry makes sense to me.
-1 for implication.

-1 for implication.

99% of 69 has no rotational symmetry an implication would just be wrong.

That depends on how strict you are with "rotational symmetry". The two people in post #622698 are hardly identical enough to support a strict definition, and most of 69 supports the same loose definition of rotational symmetry in some plane (not necessarily parallel to the frame).

In any case I would support adding "for use in non-sexual situations" to rotational_symmetry's definition and not implicating.

Log said:
99% of 69 has no rotational symmetry

I feel like I just fell through a warphole into some bizarre otherdimensional math lesson.

If you are talking about the people sure they do but if you're talking about the image itself no, not even remotely. If it's going to be an analogue to symmetry you speak of the entire image rather than the people in it.

rotational_symmetry is okay and all, but I share the concern that it's really... broad. I say go ahead and use it for now but there should be some sort of term we can use that more explicitly references that it's a position of two bodies. Just not sure how to say it in a word or two.

jxh2154 said:
rotational_symmetry is okay and all, but I share the concern that it's really... broad. I say go ahead and use it for now but there should be some sort of term we can use that more explicitly references that it's a position of two bodies. Just not sure how to say it in a word or two.

symmetry also has this problem; without reading the wiki one might reasonably assume it to be more general and encompass more than just body positioning.

Log said:
If you are talking about the people sure they do but if you're talking about the image itself no, not even remotely. If it's going to be an analogue to symmetry you speak of the entire image rather than the people in it.

I was under the impression that the tag was meant to apply to any instance of that pose between two people, and not necessarily to the image composition as a whole. I don't see anything in this thread, aside from the implicit definition of the words "rotational_symmetry" that would imply that.