post #1474100

Tagged it to make it clear they are currently engaged in a
pretty fun activity but you can't 'see' anything I I)

And If you didn't look at the tags would you still be able to tell?

What do you doods think?

Explicit

Chaser said:
Explicit

How so if you don't mind me asking m8 ╹‿╹)

Sex is always explicit

Chaser said:
Sex is always explicit

Ah, Kk.
Doesn't matter if you can see anything or not.
If they're doing it, It's always gonna be explicit.

Thank for the heads up m8 ◠‿╹)

There's probably some pictures where it's a gray area--take the stereotypical 'face to face, in lap nude and kissing ' picture, or 'topless horizontal kisses' .. but nala licking simba's cheek isn't explict. But if most people would assume they're having sex, it's a safe assumption. even if "they're just cuddling"

Sex -rating:e could use scrubbing, by the way. Cleaned some of it, but ran out of time as usual.

Here's some easy searches to start with:
- threesome -rating:e. Threesome sometimes gets mistagged instead of group, which results in erroneous group_sex and sex implications.
- from_behind_position -rating:e. Nowhere near as bad as it used to be before we tacked *_position to it, but it's still occasionally mistagged for stuff like rear_view or grabbing_from_behind.
- solo sex -rating:explicit -multiple_images. Generally, sex requires more than one character.

And I honestly don't know what to do about f/f sex -rating:e. A lot of those are extremely ambiguous.

Chaser said:
Sex is always explicit

Just curious if there's some reason why it's not implicated? I figured that 'implied but not explicit' was allowed to be questionable.

regsmutt said:
Just curious if there's some reason why it's not implicated? I figured that 'implied but not explicit' was allowed to be questionable.

I don't think you can. I just tried 2 ways to edit posts by inserting rating:e as a tag, it didn't work with either manually editing or editing via post page. The tag didn't even get tagged, so IDK but it didn't work.

Furthermore, I know it is to be avoided since tags like sex might be added accidentally, IE to a post listing a character's "sex". Since there are many tags that would otherwise imply an explicit rating, this would add more work when people misrate an image or mistag it which causes the misrating.

post #1474817

I'm gonna borrow this thread and ask whether should be explicit or not, and possibly the prior page. It's pretty clear what's happening now.

regsmutt said:
Just curious if there's some reason why it's not implicated? I figured that 'implied but not explicit' was allowed to be questionable.

Unfortunately we cannot implicate ratings to tags. It is on the todo feature list though.

Siral_Exan said:
post #1474817

I'm gonna borrow this thread and ask whether should be explicit or not, and possibly the prior page. It's pretty clear what's happening now.

I'm pretty sure that sex, whether implied or clearly shown, is always rated explicit, even if you can't see any genitalia. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Some sort of adult birth? Or... full_tour/soft_vore? It seems tildriel is canonically a dickgirl, so I'd hope she's not a brood mother there. anal_vore implied. soft_vore is minimum questionable, but if it seems like a sexual act then it should be explicit.

I wonder if reading the entire comic would provide any insight.

abadbird said:
Some sort of adult birth? Or... full_tour/soft_vore? It seems tildriel is canonically a dickgirl, so I'd hope she's not a brood mother there. anal_vore implied. soft_vore is minimum questionable, but if it seems like a sexual act then it should be explicit.

I wonder if reading the entire comic would provide any insight.

It isn't birthing, Tildriel has a knot, they're stuck together via their genitals.

Siral_Exan said:
post #1474817

I'm gonna borrow this thread and ask whether should be explicit or not, and possibly the prior page. It's pretty clear what's happening now.

Are they knotted? Pulling someone out of the taur's ass? What does "assembly required" mean??

Alright, looked through some previous pages and it seems those characters are knotted. Context matters! So yeah, it's explicit.

regsmutt said:
Are they knotted? Pulling someone out of the taur's ass? What does "assembly required" mean??

Alright, looked through some previous pages and it seems those characters are knotted. Context matters! So yeah, it's explicit.

I mean, I'd assume from looking at that page alone something explicit is going on.

Furrin_Gok said:
I mean, I'd assume from looking at that page alone something explicit is going on.

It's either something explicit or they each sat down in glue and then their butts touched in a completely non-lewd way.

Furrin_Gok said:
I mean, I'd assume from looking at that page alone something explicit is going on.

Oh definitely, it felt explicit, and non-explicit explanations seemed unlikely. Just the specifics weren't immediately obvious.