Feedback
ยท
Change "flesh" somehow to refer to hairless mammallian skin clearly (implemented)
By a dictionary definition, "flesh" does not refer to skin (ergo epidermis, dermis, subcutis), but rather the muscle and fat below that. I'm not trying to argue by dictionary, of course, just that the option needs to be more clear.
It appears that many people are using flesh to refer to regular human-like skin, of course, and as such it might be an idea to simply adjust the tool-tip from "unprotected flesh" (which by the above would semantically refer to creatures which have no skin at all, so exist with exposed muscle and presumably incredibly strong immune systems and pain thresholds) to something referring to the common interpretation, that is, the regular skin most of us comfortably wear in reality.
Alternately, I suppose a new skin type could be created, but unless "flesh" is renamed to that type and then "flesh" itself is re-created to explicitly mean "exposed muscles and fat" (or every profile with "flesh" selected as a skin type has that trait cleared and are told to go set it again) there are going to be a lot of profiles running around with the wrong skin type selected for a long time.
endorsement points: 0
created: 05 July 15 at 02:39 AM (build: 6/30/2015 1:45 AM beta)
closed: 29 May 16 at 05:26 AM (build: 5/25/2016 1:08 PM beta)
Flesh is supposed to refer to skin, so if it's not clear, it should be changed to something clearer - not something new that makes Flesh sound like it's for Attack On Titan giants.
It is definitely not meant to refer to something like this, but just normal human-like skin without exceissive fur. Open to suggestions on other names for it, but nothing comes to mind to me but flesh.
Maybe not so much a rename, but just perhaps just adjust the description a little? It may be difficult to find something concise that doesn't use the term "human-like", though, if that's something you're trying to avoid.
It is definitely not meant to refer to something like this, but just normal human-like skin without exceissive fur.
Here is another thing, though - if all you want is the skin akin to one humans have, just call it Human or better, Human-like (way too many categories are already called Human).
But there are species that have bare skin and it is not exactly human-like, rhinos and hippos being the easy example (for the most part their skin is bare, but has nothing to do with ours). I suppose the good way to get out of it is to call the category Bare (since bare skin is the thing that describes it accurately, even for characters that are human but with lots of body hair).
Human-like seems good enough for this. Flesh definitely was rather creepy to think of as the appropriate choice.
I don't think human-like covers it. As roel mentioned, there's some non-furry but distinctly fleshy things like rhinos and hippos with a very thick, rough skin. Really the only thing in common there is furless but that seems to furry-centric to me as a label.
I would go for Bare, really. It conveys the message we try to send.
Skin type of bare? find male, bare profiles? I dunno about that one either.
We're taking a look at whether to change the name. The main sticking point here is what to change it to, since "bare" and "furless" don't work all that well. "Human-like" may work.
We notice the description badly needs a change. It is currently:
A character whose skin is unprotected flesh.
Which is quite freakish. Any suggestions on that front? Something like this might be appropriate:
A character with human-like skin, without dense fur, thick scales or another covering.
I have implemented the above description change and added a search alias of skin.
Got something to say?
Why don't you register and participate?
Litphoria has a unique community feedback system, where the community decides what profile options are available, and what order new features are developed.
I want my voice heard!
tell me more!