I was browsing Zero Suit Fox art, and ran across this:
https://e621.net/post/show/653434/acstlu-anthro-blush-breasts-canine-clothing-crossg

The comments show that it used to be tagged Safe, but was changed to Questionable. But I can't imagine why. None of the rules for Questionable seem to apply.

The only thing that seems even close is: "all content with slight (but obvious) fetishistic material", but that's stretching "fetishistic" pretty damn far. It's a rule 63 pic of a busty character in a catsuit, which could certainly be argued as "fetishistic", but I don't see how that makes it "unsafe" in any way.

I don't see anything questionable about it unless some people think having large breasts is inherently lewd. She's fully clothed with no excessive cleavage and isn't making any suggestive poses. Seems safe to me.

You would get weird looks if you viewed this in public. Questionable seems right to me.

Probably less about the cleavage and more about the tight_clothing. Specifically, the crotch area is extremely pronounced. Looks more like a bulge than a camel_toe, but the shape is weirdly androgynous. The artist has drawn this character as both a female and a dickgirl.

Maxpizzle said:
You would get weird looks if you viewed this in public. Questionable seems right to me.

You'd get weird looks for showing furry art to a viewing public, nearly every image on this site is furry related and therefore at least questionable. Public opinion is a poor way to judge an image, it's better to have set incremental standards instead of asking "what would the public think"?

Maxpizzle said:
You would get weird looks if you viewed this in public. Questionable seems right to me.

so that's why all gay kisses must be questionable!
lesbian kisses also, but not as much
because men lose their masculinity when kissing other men (prison rape is ok, though, but only for the rapist)
women are touchy-feely all the time, anyway, so it doesn't matter if they kiss (as long as they're hot)

Siral_Exan said:
You'd get weird looks for showing furry art to a viewing public, nearly every image on this site is furry related and therefore at least questionable. Public opinion is a poor way to judge an image, it's better to have set incremental standards instead of asking "what would the public think"?

It's a fine rule of thumb. And it's not one that I just made up. From the tagging checklist (emphasis mine):

• Explicit for [obvious stuff].
• Safe for anything that can be viewed in public without much uproar: no genitals, no sexual overtones or poses, no realistic violence, or any questionable activity.
• Questionable for everything in between, such as topless females and suggestive poses.

But, if that guideline doesn't work for you, here's an alternative rationale:

The fact that there's any question at all means that the post should be rated questionable. This is exactly why the questionable rating exists. Two people in the post's comments agreed that the post was a little iffy. It's at least plausibly incorrect for the post to be rated safe. So, I'd rather err toward questionable.

The bigger picture is that it doesn't matter. e621's rating and tagging can only be expected to be, at best, probabilistically correct. There's over a million posts and hundreds of thousands of casual users each independently weighing qualitative, interpretive features. There are bound to be borderline posts and people are bound to fall on different sides of the border.

This happens on every borderline-prone distinction. Are those huge_breasts or just big_breasts? Is that a cuntboy or is she just flat_chested? People take sides and eventually mods might be compelled to hand out records and lock the post, cementing it in favor of a side that's probably chosen more arbitrarily than we're comfortable admitting. It's all very tiring.

So, threads like this are doomed to be unproductive. Rarely, we might all say, "yeah, that guy was being a prude; the post is totally safe." But certainly, one can't count on it.

Instead of examining everything to make sure it's the best choice, I think we should be satisfied with something just not being grossly wrong. I think that post #653434 is questionable. But, if it were currently rated safe instead? I would accept that and leave it there.

That's the tagging checklist. Something you refer to when initially uploading images; to check off as you go along. A rating help section exists that cites the usual ratings, and it'll better aid advanced rating inquiries or with further judgement. You can use the public opinion thought process to rate images, but don't be surprised if someone corrects the rating by citing the guidelines or with an admin's ruling.

I question your thought process over rating posts due to questions about it. Does this mean you are questionable? You can err towards questionable, but you can't refute the rating by only asking questions. I mean, I still (quietly) question various decisions over ratings and sometimes tags, that doesn't mean they're automatically wrong or should be changed in case they're wrong, that'd make me the ultimate deciding factor when it's the contents of the post that the rating and tags revolve around. The answers, if anything, are indicitive of the desired rating.

Dogenzaka said:
I don't see anything questionable about it unless some people think having large breasts is inherently lewd. She's fully clothed with no excessive cleavage and isn't making any suggestive poses. Seems safe to me.

Exactly this. There is nothing that e621 counts as questionable in it. Nothing is exposed and there’s no suggestive posing.

What's actually particualrly funyn is lookign at the tag history on that piece:

May 12, 2015 - Squech - Uploaded, rating S
Jun 05, 2015 - CaveStory - From S to Q
Jun 06, 2015 - Esme_Belles - From Q to S
Jun 21, 2015 - CaveStory - From S to Q
Jan 11, 2017 - notAnUser - From Q to S
Jul 21, 2017 - Asriel-Akita - From S to Q
Mar 07, 2018 - Ratte - From Q to S

It's like a REALLY slow Tennis game :D

abadbird said:
Probably less about the cleavage and more about the tight_clothing. Specifically, the crotch area is extremely pronounced. Looks more like a bulge than a camel_toe, but the shape is weirdly androgynous. The artist has drawn this character as both a female and a dickgirl.

I see what you're saying about the crotch, but I disagree. The artist, in general, makes use of strong highlights... but the crotch itself is rather minimaly shaded, honestly. What really makes it protrude is the stripes on the outfit-- the crotch=pudge is the main suit color--light blue, while the inner thighs are the secondary suit color--dark blue.

The crotch is emphasized as all hell-- but that's the fault of the costume, which, by canon (as, that is Samus' Zero Suit) has those markings, complete with little flare out across the mons pubis....

So... considering the detail devoted to the ... uh.... ... .thigh armpit? Crotchpit? fuck, the place where there are lots of little wrinkles in the fabric that are reflecting light and shadow oddly... I'd guess that if the crotch was being emphasized, there'd be some hella reflections and shadows in the area... but there isn't.

The post is safe under our rating guidelines.