So I was browsing e926 when I noticed this post was tagged as Safe.

I changed the rating to Questionable for obvious reason, but noticed that there were a lot of posts that depicted similar scenarios that were all rated as safe.

Given not all of the images that wear this tag are overly sexually oriented, should they be changed to the questionable rating so those browsing e926 are truly browsing safe material?

What is everyone's thoughts about this?

I have to agree. The questionable rating is for just that - questionable images that are neither "safe" nor "explicit."

I think that there's a lot of awfully skimpy clothing on this site that gets rated safe when it ought to be questionable. That goes for both genders. I'd love to start retagging safe things as questionable, but I fear going on the crusade will get me noticed and bopped on the nose.

Ditto. Nose-bops suck.

So, if it's obvious a character has a raging boner under his clothing, would that be tagged as questionable or explicit?

SirAntagonist said:
So, if it's obvious a character has a raging boner under his clothing, would that be tagged as questionable or explicit?

That should be questionable, since you can't see the cock itself. That's like an image being questionable just because someone in the image has large breasts, even though they're covered completely by a shirt, but large enought to be noticeable nonetheless.

SirAntagonist said:
So, if it's obvious a character has a raging boner under his clothing, would that be tagged as questionable or explicit?

It would be questionably because the bulge is covered by clothing.
post #293940

If the bulge were covered yet can still be seen--explict
post #278310

SirAntagonist said:
So, if it's obvious a character has a raging boner under his clothing, would that be tagged as questionable or explicit?

I'd say Questionable, leaving Explicit for when the thing is actually visible.

It sounds like nobody's really putting forward the dissenting opinion here. I'm going to start reviewing bulge-tagged images.

EDIT: In spite of the bulge, these don't all seem questionable to me. Check out this one:
post #285027

The difference is that the images that kicked off this thread were all wearing noticably lacking clothing. It's the skimpiness rather than the bulge as such. The bulge tag is just an obvious target because it has accumulated a lot of specifically questionable materials.

Also, I've taken 'bulge' off of 3-4 images so far, one of them quite highly rated. It's seen some misuse. Reminder: Not every image of someone in underwear should be tagged crotch-bulge.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend about staffing an anime convention.

"Oh, so you have to police all of those cosplayers' costumes, huh?"

"Yeah, it's... not pleasant work."

"Haha. How exactly do determine whether or not a costume is a appropriate? I guess it's pretty easy when it comes to women's costumes. But what about guys?"

"...

'Head definition.'"

I pretty much lost it after that.