Impossibly large breasts overuse

I feel like the tag impossibly large breasts is used far too liberally. If they are to be labeled impossibly large I shouldn’t be able to find photographs of women with larger breasts.

The various size tags for breasts are not well defined. The only one with a good definition is “hyper breasts” with the qualifier that they have to be at least as big as the character’s torso.

“impossibly” is just the name of the tag. It is not meant literally; it does not mean living humans can’t exist like that. This has been discussed in the past and the name decided not to be changed.

Informally, each breast:
“big”: more than a handful but smaller than a head
“huge”: bigger than a head, smaller than a ribcage
“impossibly”: larger than a ribcage
…with interpretive allowances made due to varying art styles having different proportions (eg. a cartoon style might draw heads larger than ribcages, or hands bigger than heads, which throws a strict interpretation out the window)

@Background Pony #F6CB
Then the descriptions need to be changed since they state “Breasts that are so oversized they defy physical logic.” and “breasts so ridiculously large, they would prevent standing up.”
Also feels like gigantic would be a far better term for it considering impossible apparently has nothing to do with the definition.

@Lsst
Yeah, I agree. Same thing was said 3 years ago (saby wasn’t a moderator at that point in time). And 7 years ago. Guess it’s time to bring it up again.

I think some of the bias in the description is a holdover from the past when “hyper breasts” used to be aliased into “impossibly large breasts”, and not a separate tag.