So, my curiosity finally got the better of me and I feel compelled to start a discussion here. Why is it that E621 is Tag What You See (TWYS) until the moment the ratings get involved? Let me elaborate... On more than a few instances I've seen pictures of horses, or dogs in a side profile and was just about to pass them by until I saw the red 'E', which made me take a closer look. Of course there was nothing in those pictures that seems to make them 'explicit' or even 'questionable' as the tag is described in the tagging checklist page. Finally after reading through an old comment section I forgot I commented on ages ago, I got to thinking about it again, why are some tag implications overriding tagging what we see?

IMHO we should stop being so draconian with the implementation of sheath=explicit, especially when there's nothing explicit with the image. After all safe is: "for anything that can be viewed in public without much uproar[...]"

A visible sheath on an anthro is explicit so a visible sheath on a feral is also explicit. Genitals are genitals. This is the same reason that even a cartoony x-butthole is still considered explicit, because a butthole is a butthole.

We want fewer exceptions to our rules, not more of them.

cdpaliden said:
So, my curiosity finally got the better of me and I feel compelled to start a discussion here. Why is it that E621 is Tag What You See (TWYS) until the moment the ratings get involved? Let me elaborate... On more than a few instances I've seen pictures of horses, or dogs in a side profile and was just about to pass them by until I saw the red 'E', which made me take a closer look. Of course there was nothing in those pictures that seems to make them 'explicit' or even 'questionable' as the tag is described in the tagging checklist page. Finally after reading through an old comment section I forgot I commented on ages ago, I got to thinking about it again, why are some tag implications overriding tagging what we see?

Do you have any examples of such images? Have any of them had their rating locked?

cdpaliden said:
IMHO we should stop being so draconian with the implementation of sheath=explicit, especially when there's nothing explicit with the image. After all safe is: "for anything that can be viewed in public without much uproar[...]"

Let's reverse that. Why should imagery with sheaths be marked as safe if images with penis and/or balls aren't safe?

cdpaliden said:

Of course there was nothing in those pictures that seems to make them 'explicit' or even 'questionable' as the tag is described in the tagging checklist page.

That's a good point, I've added sheaths and anuses to the list of things that always make an image explicit.

Beyond that, what Ratte said are the main reasons: We want the least amount of exceptions possible. It's simply easier to follow the rules if we can go blindly by what is visible instead of having to try and judge if the sheath is pornographically in scene, or artistic nudity. For us they are genitals, thus explicit. Nice and clean, no wiggle room or guessing.

cdpaliden said:
IMHO we should stop being so draconian with the implementation of sheath=explicit, especially when there's nothing explicit with the image. After all safe is: "for anything that can be viewed in public without much uproar[...]"

The biggest problem is where do we draw the line, y'know? there's a lot of gray area.

I mean... It's pretty obvious that this: post #1595690 is pretty safe. that's just anatomy.

but then you got stuff like this:

post #1623684 post #1608660 post #1585823

Which are... not... really more than I see when my cats are relaxing.. yet, that would definetly make someone's head turn.

But obviously, there's intent involved.

but where do you draw the line? post #1542075 post #1518846 post #935311

It is, as has been stated, easiest to say that if it's visible, it's explicit.

I believe the distinction is what tasteful_nude attempted to address.

Random said:
I believe the distinction is what tasteful_nude attempted to address.

If so, it failed terribly at it. I don't remember seeing a single tasteful_nude post that was tagged for ferals.

Nobody complains about anthros with visible sheaths being rated explicit, and everyone seems fine with rating feral characters like Pokemon or MLP as E if there's a visible sheath.

It's specifically the realistically drawn animals that seem to bring the rating into question. But whether it's a cartoon pony or a realistically drawn one, the content is the same. Therefore the rating should be the same too.