I thought it was how if you could answer yes to "would you present this to your child or your friend", but I see people consistently putting safe on micro bikinis, with nipples poking out, sexy lingerie, pics obviously checking her ass out, and with pussy mound, cameltoe, etc.

Where does the line for safe stop for swimsuits (especially bikinis) and other revealing/tight fitting clothes that don't show nipples? Having a full cleavage? Underboob? Sideboob?

What do you propose we can do about it?

Risque bikinis aren't necessarily questionable, if the image isn't suggestive those should usually be safe, as long as they cover nipples and genitalia.

Defined cameltoes are already supposed to be rated questionable, only if they're very, very mild cameltoes are they allowed to be safe.

If nipples are visible the post should also be rated questionable, to comply with our guidelines. If you see something else report the post to us.

furryMaxime said:
I thought it was how if you could answer yes to "would you present this to your child or your friend", but I see people consistently putting safe on micro bikinis, with nipples poking out, sexy lingerie, pics obviously checking her ass out, and with pussy mound, cameltoe, etc.

Where does the line for safe stop for swimsuits (especially bikinis) and other revealing/tight fitting clothes that don't show nipples? Having a full cleavage? Underboob? Sideboob?

What do you propose we can do about it?

Those are mistagged, bc those should be tagged under questionable under how the standards of this site in particular work.

https://e621.net/post/show/1973316/
This is an example of something I would've liked and expected to see in questionable. The pose is that of a pinup, presenting herself, the clothing is very form-fitting, borderline see-through, character is drawn in a very attractive way.

It doesn't necessarily show a lot of skin or naughty parts but it's obviously drawn in a way that is meant to be sexy/titillating (and with a NSFW version in mind), and definitely not something I'd ever show to someone else.

Or am I wrong?

My general rule of thumb with characters in risqué outfits is whether or not there is something else going on. Things like really suggestive poses, hand gestures, genitalia outlines, blatant nipple outlines, etc. I would consider those before rating something as safe or questionable.

I've heard in the past that if it's difficult to decide whether an image should be rated Q or S, then it's better to go with Q.

I'd have tagged https://e621.net/post/show/1973316/

As Safe.

It's just a clothed MLP character in water. Nothing else. No suggestive poses, no teasing, and nothing deviant going on.

Help: ratings is a good place to help decide whether something is S->Q->E

vex714 said:
It's just a clothed MLP character in water. Nothing else. No suggestive poses, no teasing, and nothing deviant going on.

That's honestly oversimplifying it. There is a lot more going on than that

furryMaxime said:
https://e621.net/post/show/1973316/
This is an example of something I would've liked and expected to see in questionable. The pose is that of a pinup, presenting herself, the clothing is very form-fitting, borderline see-through, character is drawn in a very attractive way.

It doesn't necessarily show a lot of skin or naughty parts but it's obviously drawn in a way that is meant to be sexy/titillating (and with a NSFW version in mind), and definitely not something I'd ever show to someone else.

Or am I wrong?

even if it's a pose, and form fitting clothing that is all it is, if the image does have an nsfw variant than that post can be rated accordingly to e or q depending on content, but this example image doesn't actually fall into any of the criteria I know to justify being tagged as questionable.
https://e621.net/help/show/ratings

So what you are all saying is the rating system isn't there to judge how sexy, kinky or gory a piece is.

Because from what I can tell the entire point of such a system in any other website is to prevent underage people or casual viewers from seeing sexy, kinky or gory stuff.

I'm asking to know whether the website needs some changing or if I should remove rating:s from my blacklist or even complexify it so it doesn't blacklist sexy pictures, because apparently we can't have obviously sexy stuff be considered sexy. Or do we need a tag for it, now?

By the way, I'm not asking what the help section is saying. I know what it says. I'm asking for your opinion, your thoughts. We can't move forward if all we do is look back.

Let me take this as an example.
https://e621.net/post/show/1972567

This is literally tagged "seductive". She's got a massive cleavage and you can clearly tell she is wearing some lingerie under her top. This is the definition of teasing. Yet it's safe.

furryMaxime said:
So what you are all saying is the rating system isn't there to judge how sexy, kinky or gory a piece is.

Because from what I can tell the entire point of such a system in any other website is to prevent underage people or casual viewers from seeing sexy, kinky or gory stuff.

I'm asking to know whether the website needs some changing or if I should remove rating:s from my blacklist or even complexify it so it doesn't blacklist sexy pictures, because apparently we can't have obviously sexy stuff be considered sexy. Or do we need a tag for it, now?

By the way, I'm not asking what the help section is saying. I know what it says. I'm asking for your opinion, your thoughts. We can't move forward if all we do is look back.

I mean, the issue with your view is that it sounds like you believe a post can't both be sexy, and safe for work. But the issue with that line of thought is that attraction is a subjective matter.

Take your example picture, change it from a drawing to a real person, the dress still isn't see threw and the nipples don't pertrude threw her dress. But she is posing and partially submerged and a good looking female, would you consider that image to be questionable content, or just someone posing in a body of water? Rated:s means that the image is safe for viewing a public location, do some images get miss rated? yes. Is that a problem? yes. But that is a user issue rather than an issue with the ratings system and criteria, personally I don't think that there is an issue with the current rating system.

On a second note, underage users aren't even allowed on this site though some sneak threw. And casual users that just happen to pass by would be subjected to all the content the site has to offer regardless of rating until they set up the vistors blacklist. Other than that if they wanted to view just the sites safe content they should instead be going to https://e926.net as it's the safe variant of the site. As well as being one of the big reason why post ratings are actually pretty well regulated.

Versperus said:
I mean, the issue with your view is that it sounds like you believe a post can't both be sexy, and safe for work. But the issue with that line of thought is that attraction is a subjective matter.

Take your example picture, change it from a drawing to a real person, the dress still isn't see threw and the nipples don't pertrude threw her dress. But she is posing and partially submerged and a good looking female, would you consider that image to be questionable content, or just someone posing in a body of water?

Would you ever view a human version of that at work? I certainly wouldn't. And you probably shouldn't either. Any level of sexy isn't safe for work. People get fired over stuff like that. Only because furry artist constantly call non-straight-up-porn versions "SFW" doesn't mean that's true in a normal setting. That's what we call "moving the goalposts".

Versperus said:
Other than that if they wanted to view just the sites safe content they should instead be going to https://e926.net as it's the safe variant of the site. As well as being one of the big reason why post ratings are actually pretty well regulated.

I am very aware of that alternate website and if anything, that variant isn't viewable either in any public setting for all the sexy "SFW" content it's littered with.

furryMaxime said:
Let me take this as an example.
https://e621.net/post/show/1972567

This is literally tagged "seductive". She's got a massive cleavage and you can clearly tell she is wearing some lingerie under her top. This is the definition of teasing. Yet it's safe.

Literally only actually "suggestive" thing about this image is her expression which is why its tagged as seductive. Seductive expression alone is not enough to bump up rating. If you changed her expression, it would be just woman sitting in slightly revealing clothing (it's literally something people could wear in public) with absolutely nothing questionable or suggestive going on.

hiekkapillu said:
Literally only actually "suggestive" thing about this image is her expression which is why its tagged as seductive. Seductive expression alone is not enough to bump up rating. If you changed her expression, it would be just woman sitting in slightly revealing clothing with absolutely nothing questionable or suggestive going on.

You could also change her expression to pleasure/some level of ahegao and it could even possibly be considered explicit (in the normal world). Expression does matter. Choice of clothes do matter. The way those clothes are worn do matter. The pose matters. Heck, the level of sexiness of the person/character also matters (even if that's more subjective, there is a level where tits, hips and thighs (or muscle and whatever else for dudes) are drawn in such a way that is obviously sexually appealing). What sucks for you is that the seductive expression is NOT "alone"/the only suggestive thing here.

furryMaxime said:
Would you ever view a human version of that at work? I certainly wouldn't. And you probably shouldn't either. Any level of sexy isn't safe for work. People get fired over stuff like that. Only because furry artist constantly call non-straight-up-porn versions "SFW" doesn't mean that's true in a normal setting. That's what we call "moving the goalposts".

You're right that just because an artist calls something SFW doesn't mean that it is, which is why the site has it's own tagging guidelines. Would I view the human equivalent in a public setting? Yes, as it just seems like a pinup. The furry version? No, but that's only because I don't want people to know I like furry stuff.

Versperus said:
Would I view the human equivalent in a public setting? Yes, as it just seems like a pinup.

Oh, so you think the general reaction of random strangers (who aren't as perverted as we are, because our level is not a norm) to seeing you watching this would be neutral to positive? Sorry to pop your bubble, but that is simply not true. Most people would either be upset, disgusted, uncomfortable, or at the very least feel as though you should be watching that somewhere else.

Though I thought the quantifier was "for work". Moving the goalposts.

I would have to concur with furryMaxime. Neither of the two examples provided I'd consider safe to view at work, in public, or show to (non-perverted) family. Maybe https://e621.net/post/show/1973316/ could be alright, but it still gives me hesitation... the revealing legs and crotch, the large chest, shy expression and blush, and the glowing atmosphere is evoking a warm closeness to draw you to the character. Nothing overtly sexual (though that crotch outline makes me do a double-take), but certainly not child-friendly innocent. And as was said earlier, "if it's difficult to decide whether an image should be rated Q or S, then it's better to go with Q."

The second example https://e621.net/post/show/1972567 really isn't even a question in my mind. The large breasts and thighs, cleavage, visible bra/lingerie, short skirt and crossed-legs directly facing the viewer, and back-room atmosphere, I can't see how that's not meant to titillate.

The children can see worse stuff , legally, outside on the street, I don't think they need protection from some skin and shapes.
And there are lots of safe images that are not "pure". And some of that purity depends on viewers culture.

hiekkapillu said:
it would be just woman sitting in slightly revealing clothing

Which would justify it being Questionable :
"characters with revealing clothing with obvious [...] teasing intent"

Though I would also throw in her pose, which is clearly emphasizing her breasts and thighs:
"suggestive posing [...] where focus is drawn to breasts, butt, or covered/obscured genitals"

AoBird said:
The children can see worse stuff , legally, outside on the street, I don't think they need protection from some skin and shapes.
And there are lots of safe images that are not "pure". And some of that purity depends on viewers culture.

That's kind of the point of having "safe" as a rating. You know, for people who don't want to see sexual stuff everywhere they go, but as a choice? Or even for people who only want to see lewd stuff, defining sexy stuff as safe makes it difficult to see(, vote, favourite, comment on, save, or whatever) all the sexy stuff an artist can offer without all the extra safe fluff because blacklisting rating:s without a bunch of "-[...]"s is then not viable.

You can't define sexual stuff as not sexual because somehow, somewhere, someone doesn't see it as sexual. Also, the discussion isn't about whether children "can" or "should", or about sexuality in the world's cultures. We're talking about where the line is in defining things safe (for work), or not, here.

The question we should ask everyone is "Would you purposefully show that to your coworker (at work), your child, your sister AND your mother?" (if we take the furry aspect out obviously)

furryMaxime
You could also change her expression to pleasure/some level of ahegao and it could even possibly be considered explicit (in the normal world).

The normal world is full of varying beliefs, customs, and cultures. What is appealing also varies. Therefore what is appealing is subjective.

An image can be appealing and still be considered safe. You have to consider if there are other things present. lewd faces alone aren't enough. If you take the image in question:

https://e621.net/post/show/1973316/

and if the character was looking like she had half closed eyes with a lewd pleasured face with a tongue hanging out, then yeah, you could possibly say that it's questionable (maybe they are horny?). If there obvious teasing? Then yeah sure Q is the way. However the teasing is not strong in the Fluttershy image. Nothing that says "come hither my knight in shining armor" or what-have-you. Would the Fluttershy image as it stands be erotic? To some folks probably. To me, it looks Safe. These days we can't exactly be thinking like Victorian age folks.

"A woman showing her ankles!? That is rather lewd! Preposterous my dear Watson! What is this tomfoolery?"

You have to look for other factors that can contribute to a change in a higher rating:

If she were covered in a lot of blood then it's E
If she were covered in other bodily fluids (semen etc.) then it's E.
If there was a presence of sex toys then it's E.
If there was nips or a strong focus on a part like the butt or breasts then it's Q

The whole point of labeling something as Q because it's just that, questionable.

Also, we as users have the power to change the rating most of the time so long we have a valid reason for doing so. A lot of the times it's obvious.

It's not perfect, but the rating system is something that attempts to cater to a wide audience. However, the rating system cannot cater to every single individual and their view on what is sexy. Which is why it is left to the uploader and other users to help rate accordingly under the helpful hand of the site guides. Most importantly, be reasonable about it.

I'd personally never show stuff from this site or anything that "interests" me to anyone at any given time irl. Safe or otherwise. I keep this stuff to myself.

vex714 said:
I'd personally never show stuff from this site or anything that "interests" me to anyone at any given time irl. Safe or otherwise. I keep this stuff to myself.

You're being way too vague, using lukewarm words like "appealing" to make it seem less impactful than it really is, simplifying too much/leaving a lot out that you can't argue against, and using ridiculous comparisons and exagerated examples, all in one package. All the while defining questionable with itself.

"It's not perfect so let's not do anything about it"

Also what are you even suggesting by "interests"? If you're talking about things that are sexy to you, obviously? How does that add anything to the conversation? If you're not talking about sexual interests, then how do you manage an interesting conversation going if you don't talk about your interests in life?

We're talking about the nuances for fuck's sake, not the obvious. Have you even read our messages? We've talked about "the other things to take in consideration". I'm not going to give your comment anymore effort. *facepalm*

Does the term cheesecake mean nothing to you?
Lets make it really simple, worse than this image right here, Q or E. Equally as risque but not naked to literally toddler cartoon maximum prude tier, S.
Nose cone art on a real airplane, straight from (family friendly) wikipedia.

Hell, by e621's own rules, this one would be rated questionable and it's the headline photo for Nose Art (for aircraft).

Anonomn said:
Does the term cheesecake mean nothing to you?
Lets make it really simple, worse than this image right here, Q or E. Equally as risque but not naked to literally toddler cartoon maximum prude tier, S.
Nose cone art on a real airplane, straight from (family friendly) wikipedia.

Hell, by e621's own rules, this one would be rated questionable and it's the headline photo for Nose Art (for aircraft).

Implying that because its got its own word or is on Wikipedia for historical/documentary purposes that it's somehow something you'd watch (purposefully and for itself, not because it's just there as accompanying examplary material for documenting like in wikipedia) in public, or more importantly at work, or is should even be under "safe".

Implying something that was commonly done by horny dudes stuck in the military decades ago is relevant to this conversation or this website, or even today's society.

Remember kids, context is important. We're on a furry art & porn website.

Stating it like this like it's simple fact with no basis really doesn't do you or anyone any favor.

(too much ankle I guess?)

Fair, that's what I get for mentioning interests at all. Let's just leave it that I simply don't show what's here to family and coworkers. What I find "appealing" is not important.

I'm not saying "let's not do anything about it". Those are your words not mine. If there is something that can be done, it can be mentioned here. That's why it's a friendly open forum.

Yes, I've read the other messages.

Like I said, the whole point of labeling something as Q because it's just that, questionable.

You're right, it can be seen as nuanced on "what is safe". but you're trying to get a clear cut black and white answer to something that has grey areas. Images go through a process and get approved by staff. So if it's cool by them, it's cool.

There's plenty of other people here who know waaaaaay more than I about what can be considered S or Q. So I'll leave it to my betters. I'm just giving you my two cents, take it for what it's worth. But I go by what I've said before.

"If it's difficult to decide whether an image should be rated Q or S, then it's better to go with Q."

I would not label this one as Questionable. The cut of her clothing is actually relatively tame compared to, say, a bikini. No nipples, aureolas, or genitals are visible, even through fabric. And her expression might be coy, perhaps a touch vacuous, but just giving the viewer a funny look isn't grounds for Suggestiveness. I've seen more suggestive stuff on a 90s childrens' show, albeit played more for laughs.

In my estimation, it's definitely Safe.

Your coworkers (that are probably clothed worse than those images) are more likely to get triggered by a furry thing rather than the cleavage.

furryMaxime said:
Because you provided examples in a specific context means its invalid and I'm going to ignore you because of the context of the singular example.

You can not be concise and punctual, because lengths of text entirely going into every detail is the exact opposite of being short and punctual, so I'll add to that below.

furryMaxime said:
Implying that because its got its own word (...) that it's somehow something you'd watch (...) in public, or more importantly at work, or is should even be under "safe".

To a certain extent, that's exactly what it means. Having a defined and established term for the type of content in question means that there was a reason for the term to come into existence in the first place, because it's something that was needed to concisely describe the specific type of content.
I'd think that by most western metrics, the hard line between "SFW" (S) and "NSFW" (Q and E) is, for males, genitalia being exposed, and for females, genitalia (E) and nipples (Q) being exposed (sexist, yes, but I don't make the rules). As many other people have already said, anything more granular than that is going to be dependent on what level of prude you are, and absolutely no one is going to absolutely concur with every single minor "What if" scenario.
Back to the point of cheesecake, most of your main point seems to be "Would you show this at work", assuming there was active reason for doing so, I'd have zero issue with showing that pony image that keeps getting relinked in a work environment, as I would also have no problem watching Who Framed Rodger Rabbit in a work / school / institutional / etc. environment, because anything that could be conceivably remotely risque is only cheesecake, not actually "NSFW". Or the movie this comes from, because it's still only PG-13 "SFW" cheesecake at worst.
This is all assuming a neutral work environment that as a whole is at a level of prudishness about equal to what "Walking on the street in a public location" may be. If you're working somewhere where they're full on "No ankles", then obviously that's going to be different than if you were a lighting guy on a porn set. Again, aside from the previously mentioned seemingly well established hard lines, what is considered literally "Safe for Work" or "Not Safe for Work" is dependent on what "Work" is.
Also, to jump to the opening post,

furryMaxime said:
Where does the line for safe stop for swimsuits (especially bikinis) and other revealing/tight fitting clothes that don't show nipples? Having a full cleavage? Underboob? Sideboob?

The line is visible nipples, anything goes otherwise as far as boobs are concerned. Hence why Mistique can be PG-13.

I agree with the others, neither of those two examples are fit for questionable. They're at the border of what is considered safe, but they're not yet over it into questionable territory.

The reason for that is fairly simple, looking coy or wearing clothes with low thread counts aren't necessarily questionable. An image having a porn variation also isn't a reason to have it placed in questionable.

Another thing, bulges and cameltoes can be safe, if they're very, very tame. Basically if it's just there that you can tell that "hey, this person has genitals, oh my", it probably is safe. The moment you can see details it starts becoming questionable, and if the clothing starts looking more like bodypaint it should be explicit.

Also, a couple other things I've seen in your recent edit history:

post #1968444 - just because there's a butt in the image doesn't make it questionable

post #1971304 - I have literally no idea how this is a "fetishistic presentation of workout"

post #1969608 - sideboob isn't questionable

post #1367196 - bikinis aren't sexual clothing, I don't know what else to tell you for this one

However, with a whole bunch of others you're right on the money, that one image of krystal quite literally a shot focusing on her tits, others had visible, pronounced camel toes, and similar.

Anonomn said:
Nose cone art on a real airplane, straight from (family friendly) wikipedia.]

That's a pin-up, it's Q pretty much by definition. The point of the genre is to be Q rated.

post #1973316 is Q for the same reason. That's soft-core erotica, like imagine a similar picture with a human girl in it, in a night gown and stuff.

These are safe: post #1452648 post #1717812 post #1452656 post #889102 post #1160775
These I'd say aren't: post #1773331 post #922038

Tagging things like post #1973316 and post #1969608 "safe" makes the "safe" rating completely useless. Like the point in searching for "safe" images on a porn site if it returns a bunch of pinups instead of the few genuinely non-erotic posts that the site happens to have as well?

NotMeNotYou said:
Another thing, bulges and cameltoes can be safe, if they're very, very tame.

But sheaths can't, even if one needs to pull a microscope to see it /s

It seems most of you misunderstand the entire point of the word "questionable", or even the word "safe". As hslugs says, what's the point of having basically a SFW filter (known as rating:s), if what is shown is littered with pinups?

I mean the entire point of questionable is that if you think it might be sexy to a sizable portion of the viewerbase, then it's sexiness is indeed.. questionable.. right? Sideboob, underboob, mini-bikinis, lingerie, large cleavages/boob windows, hell, pinups in general, are very sexy things for a large majority of people who are attracted to women in a sexual way.

On that basis, let me address these images:
1. My thought was: Why would the angle be that way if not to emphasize on the butt? Emphasis on the butt is technically Q even by the website's guide. Though I can accept that this was an overstatement for this one.
2. The skintight suit, the dream-like hips and thighs, the gap, the ever slight cameltoe, the boob window, the pose... Everything here screams fetishistic/titillating. It's a pinup, it's sexy, it's not safe for work.
3. Sideboob is sexy. Pose is emphasize sexy bits. Pinups are sexy. Sexy isn't safe for work. Therefore questionable.
4. Oh, so wearing a mini-bikini with boobs this size that covers just over the nipples but not the actual boob is not sexual, now? What about the character's sexiness in general? This picture is sexy because of the fact that the character itself is curvy in a way many would describe as "perfect" and it's barely hiding any of that sexiness. Heck, it's being hidden with something sexy (a tiny bikini).

If you guys truly believe that pinups are safe, then this website is beyond helping for both true SFW viewing and true NSFW viewing.

Unless you expect people to make a blacklist entry like this for NSFW viewing:
rating:s -side_boob -under_boob -bikini -skinsuit -tight -cameltoe -nipples -[...]
and having to add all the sexy, but apparently "safe", things they know of, making a long ass query, and making it hard on everyone (and everything) involved. And even then that simply can't be perfect because there are so many other failure points which involve people.

Seriously. Just search (with male blacklisted) rating:s ~nipple_outline ~nipples ~cameltoe
This is a problem.

What we may need is to add another layer of abstraction to the rating system.

NotMeNotYou said:
I agree with the others, neither of those two examples are fit for questionable. They're at the border of what is considered safe, but they're not yet over it into questionable territory.

How isn't post #1972567 an image of "revealing clothing with obvious teasing intent"? That's literally what Questionable is for.

NotMeNotYou said:
Another thing, bulges and cameltoes can be safe, if they're very, very tame. Basically if it's just there that you can tell that "hey, this person has genitals, oh my", it probably is safe.

This is directly contradicted by the ratings guide, which lists "slight cameltoes and/or non-detailed bulges" as Questionable. Very, very tame cameltoes are safe, but slight cameltoes are Questionable? Very, very tame bulges are safe, but non-detailed bulges are Questionable? Can you explain what you mean by "very, very tame" vs slight/non-detailed?

NotMeNotYou said:
The moment you can see details it starts becoming questionable

Similarly the guide lists "blatant cameltoes and detailed bulges (penis_outline)" as Explicit, not even Questionable.

NotMeNotYou said:
post #1968444 - just because there's a butt in the image doesn't make it questionable

The focus is clearly on the butt though, which is similarly directly mentioned for Questionable: "suggestive posing where focus is drawn to [the] butt"

NotMeNotYou said:
post #1971304 - I have literally no idea how this is a "fetishistic presentation of workout"

Looks to be a slight cameltoe, which the guide says is Questionable.

NotMeNotYou said:
post #1969608 - sideboob isn't questionable

"suggestive posing where focus is drawn to breasts, butt" - Questionable

NotMeNotYou said:
post #1367196 - bikinis aren't sexual clothing, I don't know what else to tell you for this one

I could probably agree with this one, given there's no overtly suggestive posing bringing attention to breasts or crotch. Still seems a bit unnecessarily revealing for Safe though.

hslugs said:
But sheaths can't, even if one needs to pull a microscope to see it /s

Yes, because one is exposed genitalia and the other is behind clothing; I wonder why those are treated differently. If you're wondering, the level where it's safe is below where bulges should be tagged, basically at the point of what it looks like when an average adult male wears a pair of boxer shorts or briefs and nothing else. You can test this at home with a mirror and some underwear, though if your groin looks like a Ken doll you may have to ask one of your friends to model it for you.

The same goes for cameltoes, if there is a only a very, very faint crease visible it might be safe, because again, that's just what some types lower thread count clothing does at times. Some clothing can appear to cause one, but it's actually not a vulva that's visible, it's a crease caused by the inner padding being stitched to the middle of the groin.

I'll be actually replying to other parts (and other people) tomorrow, as it's currently 3AM, and this sorry excuse of a hyperbole bothered me.
However, do you people actually think that any sort of smaller bikini should actually not be under safe? Because I have seen that level, or smaller, regularly on beaches around here and they're most certainly not adult only beaches. Which is why I'm baffled why a bit of boob and the groin above the mons pubis should already be questionable, as that feels even more draconic than most US media does.

furryMaxime said:
https://e621.net/post/show/1973316/

Dood, That picture is amazing!~✩
And exactly what I needed to see right now!
Reason: For art biz, Flutter does look pretty
amazing with a shine to their hair, Am I right?

Really glad you used Flutter-peep as an example, m8.
A one ina billion coincidence and I really
appreciate it! ◠‿╹)

NotMeNotYou said:
Because I have seen that level, or smaller, regularly on beaches around here and they're most certainly not adult only beaches. Which is why I'm baffled why a bit of boob and the groin above the mons pubis should already be questionable, as that feels even more draconic than most US media does.

Not that I think specific public areas are necessarily a good measure (I've seen plenty of stuff at public pride parades that would certainly classify as explicit here), different places have different standards and expectations, with the only real limit being the actual law, and sometimes not even that. But I'm not saying a skimpy bikini should inherently be adult only or explicit. I'm just saying when there's more skin(/fur/feathers) on display than you could comfortably show your mother or niece, I don't think it's unreasonable to think its at least questionably questionable, even if it would ultimately fall to safe on an objective accounting of what's actually there.

Also, it being questionable or explicit isn't a condemnation of the picture, there's nothing "draconic" about marking something questionable or explicit. It's descriptive not prescriptive, just a categorization for how lewd it is given what's visible or being focused on.

I recognize e9 throws a bit of a spanner into the system since it forces a safe-only filter, so making a picture not safe does block it from e9 unlike e6. But some of these pictures are undeniably questionable under the guidelines as written. If you think they're acceptable for e9, perhaps a loosening of e9's filters would be more appropriate. Or perhaps split questionable into two ratings, and allow the lesser lewd side of questionable through for e9. But moving the bar so some currently questionable things start falling under safe seems like a disservice to people who rely on safe being safe for general public viewing around strangers and young people.

For myself, I can say that if post #1969608 and post #1972567 are considered Safe, there's no way I can trust a safe-only filter for being safe for work (or family or public). I'd have to treat every "safe" picture as potentially questionable that needs prior screening.

NotMeNotYou said:
However, do you people actually think that any sort of smaller bikini should actually not be under safe? Because I have seen that level, or smaller, regularly on beaches around here and they're most certainly not adult only beaches.

Then would you expect people to view e9 on a beach so the expectations of the media's rating levels with that of the context? No! The point of "safe" is that it's safe for viewing in pretty much any context.

I've been reading you guys use a variety of real life contexts to justify it being "safe" here, when you are all missing the fact that we are not in those contexts, and that it's not some extremely small portion of questionable content in an otherwise safe media/context (in those, the point isn't the tits but the rest of the movie, the point is the beach, etc.).

Also cheesecake isn't SFW, get that shit out of your head. If it's risque, it's questionable whether or not it's safe. Meaning it's Q. Take that movie for example. If you gif out the "unsure" part, it's obviously become the point of it, meaning it's Q. But if you take the whole movie, it's obviously S because the "unsure" part (which is contextualized in the movie as a narrative point) is a teeny tiny little part of an overall PG movie.

Q isn't necessarily NSFW, or SFW either. It should be like this:
S (SFW Not sexy whatsoever), Q (Unsure), E (NSFW Openly sexy)

Do you think it's fine to wear a mini-bikini in the bus? Or at work? Or at a family gathering? Would you consider moving your hips side to side in a workout bodysuit with a boob window to be safe in any other context than in a gym? It's those kinds of questions you gotta ask yourself.

Watsit said:
I recognize e9 throws a bit of a spanner into the system since it forces a safe-only filter, so making a picture not safe does block it from e9 unlike e6. But some of these pictures are undeniably questionable under the guidelines as written. If you think they're acceptable for e9, perhaps a loosening of e9's filters would be more appropriate. Or perhaps split questionable into two ratings, and allow the lesser lewd side of questionable through for e9. But moving the bar so some currently questionable things start falling under safe seems like a disservice to people who rely on safe being safe for general public viewing around strangers and young people.

For myself, I can say that if post #1969608 and post #1972567 are considered Safe, there's no way I can trust a safe-only filter for being safe for work (or family or public). I'd have to treat every "safe" picture as potentially questionable that needs prior screening.

Considering user errors are a thing, and that the removal of images doesn't make the page SFW at all (talk about dicks or genitalia is present in a lot of pages that are accessible) I'd definitely recommend prior screening at all times.

Watsit said:
Not that I think specific public areas are necessarily a good measure (I've seen plenty of stuff at public pride parades that would certainly classify as explicit here), different places have different standards and expectations, with the only real limit being the actual law, and sometimes not even that. But I'm not saying a skimpy bikini should inherently be adult only or explicit. I'm just saying when there's more skin(/fur/feathers) on display than you could comfortably show your mother or niece, I don't think it's unreasonable to think its at least questionably questionable, even if it would ultimately fall to safe on an objective accounting of what's actually there.

furryMaxime said:
Then would you expect people to view e9 on a beach so the expectations of the media's rating levels with that of the context? No! The point of "safe" is that it's safe for viewing in pretty much any context.

I've been reading you guys use a variety of real life contexts to justify it being "safe" here, when you are all missing the fact that we are not in those contexts, and that it's not some extremely small portion of questionable content in an otherwise safe media/context (in those, the point isn't the tits but the rest of the movie, the point is the beach, etc.).

I brought up public beaches because they're family friendly, common places. I don't really count pride parades as family friendly, not the least due to the inherent noise and the desire of some people to flaunt their collection of fetish gear.
But those aren't really concerns on a beach, people show skin not for the sake of titillating, but to tan or swim.

furryMaxime said:
Also cheesecake isn't SFW, get that shit out of your head. If it's risque, it's questionable whether or not it's safe. Meaning it's Q. Take that movie for example. If you gif out the "unsure" part, it's obviously become the point of it, meaning it's Q. But if you take the whole movie, it's obviously S because the "unsure" part (which is contextualized in the movie as a narrative point) is a teeny tiny little part of an overall PG movie.

I have no idea what "that movie" is, I also had to look up what cheesecake in this context means (who knew that the male beefcake is more common than the female version these days), so I'm not sure what your argument here is.

furryMaxime said:
Do you think it's fine to wear a mini-bikini in the bus? Or at work? Or at a family gathering? Would you consider moving your hips side to side in a workout bodysuit with a boob window to be safe in any other context than in a gym? It's those kinds of questions you gotta ask yourself.

In order: Yes; depends on the place of work, though likely not due to the higher risk of it coming loose than anything else; yes; yes, turns out people are restless and sometimes do that even when alone, the presence of a boob window also being entirely irrelevant to my opinion on this.

NotMeNotYou said:
I have no idea what "that movie" is, I also had to look up what cheesecake in this context means (who knew that the male beefcake is more common than the female version these days), so I'm not sure what your argument here is.

That part was for someone else, and that person knows the context of my response. (if you're curious, read up)
Sorry for not using a quote right before. I can understand that being confusing

"SFW" is a non-absolute sliding scale. Get over yourself over the fact that e621 set the "SFW" point within reasonable tolerances by realistic standards above where your level of prudishness may lay.

NotMeNotYou said:
I have no idea what "that movie" is,

That was in relation to what I responded with earlier, and the movie in question is Who Framed Rodger Rabbit.

furryMaxime said:
Also cheesecake isn't SFW, get that shit out of your head.

Yes it literally is. The definition of 'cheesecake' is "To push, but not exceed, what is reasonable to represent in a SFW context." IE, not going over the line, but absolutely push it. The point of the movie example was the entire character was a representation of animators hamfisting in examples of cheesecake in 30's and 40's cartoons because they wanted to push the hard 'Do not go over the line' policies of studios then that were FAR more stringent than they would be now, talking "Can't have a married man and woman shown in the same bed" levels of absolutely absurd, without actually loosing jobs over it. Amount relative to run time is irrelevant, more than a single f-bomb gets you bumped to a R, regardless of how exacting to a PG-13 the rest of the movie may be.
To answer your (rhetorical?) questions:
"Do you think it's fine to wear a mini-bikini in the bus?"
Yes. You've covered up all the important bits, so everything's cool. I wouldn't recommend it for reasons entirely unrelated to being "publicly decent", but I'd have zero qualms with doing so for that reason.
"Or at work? Or at a family gathering?"
Have you ever been to a party at someone's house who had a swimming pool? If there was no pool, it'd be kinda weird, but I wouldn't have a problem with it for the exact same reason as the last answer. Considering most work places have dress codes in place for both company aesthetic and/or safety reasons, you're gonna run into issues there before issues with prudishness.
"Would you consider moving your hips side to side in a workout bodysuit with a boob window to be safe in any other context than in a gym?"
Clearly we must not be going to the same places because I see women in leggings, and depending on the weather, in tight shirts with deep V necks literally all the time. For any additional motions, again, it'd be weird as people don't typically do that, but I wouldn't think it'd be wrong.

I think the problem may be:
W = Zero lewd / toddler program / puritan perfection
X = Soft line between SFW and NSFW; Male genitalia and female genitalia + nipples (implied)
Y = Hard line between SFW and NSFW; Just any kind of genitalia (blatant)
Z = Not safe for life, beyond reasonable for the average person
S, Q, and E as they are for e621

This is where the spectrum lies for both e621, and average modern western society as a whole.
<S><---Q--><--------------E---------> etc. This seems to be where you want to define where the lines are, which is frankly, absurd.

NotMeNotYou said:
In order: Yes; depends on the place of work, though likely not due to the higher risk of it coming loose than anything else; yes; yes, turns out people are restless and sometimes do that even when alone, the presence of a boob window also being entirely irrelevant to my opinion on this.

Lmao, alright, I don't know where the fuck you live, but you clearly have no idea of how reality is. It is actually illegal to wear stuff revealing to that level in public spaces that aren't for that (AKA beaches), it's called public indecency. Even working as a life guard on a beach, wearing a mini-bikini would be considered bad work ethic. Not even going to address how ridiculous the family response is in reality. You seem to be understimating what I'm saying (you know, erotic workout and stretches), especially how in private/alone was never in the question.

I have a feeling that you're (both) projecting how you'd like everyday society to be full of women casually in extremely revealing or straight up naked in the streets, but that's just not reality.

Plus, in the case where any of this is even possible without being struck down by the law, it doesn't mean it's not sexy! I don't know why it's so important to you that since it's possible to do in public, that it's somehow not sexy, or SFW.

Anonomn said:
[...]

Starting off on an insult. Mature. Look at my profile picture. Am I a prude? I'm trying to help define the lines better so we can have better categorized viewing for everyone's benefit.

You just redefined the word for your own narrative.
Real definition: "photography, a movie, or art that portrays women in a manner emphasizing stereotypical sexual attractiveness."

Are we trying to define what "PG-13" is? No. We're trying to have questionably sexy stuff be either in questionable or in it's own new rating that somehow isn't questionable, so we can simply have (at least better) both effortless and painless SFW, and NSFW viewing without having to develop long complex blacklist queries.

..Which I've already had for a long while, and still have to edit every few viewings because I find something new I have to add to the rating:s blacklist query that I don't want blacklisted because it's something sexy. But for the sake of everyone, both on e6 and e9, it should be better defined.

Jesus christ, can you guys stop generalizing "mini-bikini" with just swimwear in general? Am I talking about normal swimsuits and bikinis here? Skinsuits and mini-bikinis are the level higher which is MEANT to be sexier than normal ones. They are MEANT to show-off and tease.

The rest is just pure ridicule and hyperbole. Not to mention how do you even quantify something that precise?

furryMaxime said:
Lmao, alright, I don't know where the fuck you live, but you clearly have no idea of how reality is. It is actually illegal to wear stuff revealing to that level in public spaces that aren't for that (AKA beaches), it's called public indecency.

(adding more to my lukewarmness)

If there is one thing I know, it's law.

Public indecency is: "Lewd conduct including sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse in public and public nudity falls under public indecency. In US, state laws prohibits exposure of the genitals and/or the female breast in a public place."

Last I checked swim attire isn't public nudity.

It is a social norm thing and it depends where you live. Places socially don't accept bathing suits away from beaches and pools. No shirt, no shoes, no service for businesses. Take Miami beach, Venice Beach, and Muscle beach for instance (still considered public). Businesses there are more tolerant of folks in swim attire than other places.

Anyways, Anonomn has got it pegged pretty good.

I have a feeling that you're projecting how you'd like everyday society to be full of women casually in extremely revealing or straight up naked in the streets...

Now you're just making assumptions.

Jesus christ, can you guys stop generalizing "mini-bikini" with just swimwear in general? Am I talking about normal swimsuits and bikinis here? Skinsuits and mini-bikinis are the level higher which is MEANT to be sexier than normal ones. They are MEANT to show-off and tease.

Well mini bikini is still technically swimwear.

@furryMaxime

To me it is starting to seem that you only want to force the site to change already established rules to suit your personal needs and preferences better. The safe rating does not exist to exclude everything with even slightly more mature themed content, and it isn't going to change into that just because you want it. All the stuff you have been insisting as questionable content is the kind of stuff that is perfectly fine to display in gigantic billboards in all those lingerie and perfume ads. Hell, there is even children's cartoons with characters that are on that same level of sexy.

NotMeNotYou said:
Considering user errors are a thing, and that the removal of images doesn't make the page SFW at all (talk about dicks or genitalia is present in a lot of pages that are accessible) I'd definitely recommend prior screening at all times.

Fair enough, but then I have to ask what the point the S, Q, and E rating system is, if it's this loose and open to personal interpretation and you're expected to screen images regardless of rating just in case. I mean, I tag post #1967045 and post #1923163 as questionable because of the characters' poses and slight fetishistic content, even though nothing can be seen, while post #1969608 and post #1968444 are safe because sideboobs and butts aren't questionable, despite the focus being clearly on them to excite the viewer.

NotMeNotYou said:
I brought up public beaches because they're family friendly, common places. I don't really count pride parades as family friendly, not the least due to the inherent noise and the desire of some people to flaunt their collection of fetish gear.

And I brought up public pride parades because there's no adult-only restriction on them, which is the standard you had for skimpy beachwear on beaches. If there's a beach with people running around in skimpy bikinis, I wouldn't consider it a family friendly beach, even if there's no restriction on kids being there.

Any clothing worn at your beach is inherently S because it's a public place, while clothing worn at my parade can be Q and E despite also being a public place. We're just running off your personal feeling of what's suitable for public or not, making the guidelines all wishy-washy.

NotMeNotYou said:
But those aren't really concerns on a beach, people show skin not for the sake of titillating, but to tan or swim.

An artist didn't put a character in skimpy beachwear because they need to be set out to tan. Pictures don't get tans. At this point we're trying to gauge artist intent as to why the character's in skimpy beachwear, whether they're just trying to authentically depict a lax beach environment or because they find it hot, rather than looking at the fact that it's skimpy beachwear showing off more skin than normal in public.

Or at work? - depends on the place of work

So you admit there are some common work places where it wouldn't be appropriate?

Would you consider moving your hips side to side in a workout bodysuit with a boob window to be safe in any other context than in a gym? - yes, turns out people are restless and sometimes do that even when alone, the presence of a boob window also being entirely irrelevant to my opinion on this.

So as long as the artist says "they're just being restless" or "they're just stretching", the apparent lewdness of an image can be ignored?

hiekkapillu said:
@furryMaxime

To me it is starting to seem that you only want to force the site to change already established rules to suit your personal needs and preferences better.

And here I am pointing out exactly what the established rules say that makes these pictures fall under questionable. Something no one has responded to.

hiekkapillu said:
Hell, there is even children's cartoons with characters that are on that same level of sexy.

I don't think "it's in a children's cartoon, therefore inherently safe" is a good standard to go on. I can show you a children's cartoon that shows off young kids (certain episodes of DragonBall, there are scenes where young Goku or young Gohan are naked; censored in America of course, but originally on full display in Japan). Different countries have different standards at different times for this kind of stuff.

Watsit said:
So you admit there are some common work places where it wouldn't be appropriate?

That's a really, really low bar to insist on clearing. Viewing any sort of furry art in a lot of workplaces would be considered unacceptable. Heck, there are plenty of workplaces that will get angry at you for using the Internet for personal use to begin with.

This is an impossible standard.

Clawdragons said:
That's a really, really low bar to insist on clearing. Viewing any sort of furry art in a lot of workplaces would be considered unacceptable. Heck, there are plenty of workplaces that will get angry at you for using the Internet for personal use to begin with.

This is an impossible standard.

I didn't come up with the Safe For Work standard, it's just what many people tend to use when deciding if it's safe or questionable/mature. Though I did use the term "common work place" to separate from outliers that are super-strict or super lax. Either way, if you feel a common work environment isn't a good standard to use for deciding what's "safe", feel free to discuss how you prefer to separate safe art from questionable/mature art.

furryMaxime said:
Lmao, alright, I don't know where the fuck you live, but you clearly have no idea of how reality is. It is actually illegal to wear stuff revealing to that level in public spaces that aren't for that (AKA beaches), it's called public indecency.

Greetings from Europe, I live in Germany, most of my vacations while growing up have been to various beaches and camping spots throughout Germany, with a few excursions into Scandinavia, and some of their beaches.
Swimwear isn't indecent anywhere in Europe, as long as it's not transparent. Unlike you people from North America we didn't buy into the bullshit that skin is somehow evil and needs to be hidden at all times.
For that matter, I've probably seen more naked people in public than you ever will in your entire life, simply because there's a lot of fucking nudist beaches around here which are very cheap to visit. But no, I'm not talking about nudist beaches, I'm talking about perfectly generic tourist trap beaches and connected places.
Hell, even in cities it's entirely common seeing people walk to a swimming seas and halls in swim wear already. Something like post #1367196 is uncommon, but not unheard or unseen.

furryMaxime said:
Even working as a life guard on a beach, wearing a mini-bikini would be considered bad work ethic. Not even going to address how ridiculous the family response is in reality. You seem to be understimating what I'm saying (you know, erotic workout and stretches), especially how in private/alone was never in the question.

I have a feeling that you're (both) projecting how you'd like everyday society to be full of women casually in extremely revealing or straight up naked in the streets, but that's just not reality.

I've spent most of my formative years in various community gardens, camping places, public swimming places, and similar. We have had family reunions in camping places where nobody wore more than absolutely necessary, with people being butt-naked coming out of the water a stone throw away.
Maybe you should visit Europe at some point, get some of that weird aversion to skin out of you, it's a good experience.

furryMaxime said:
Plus, in the case where any of this is even possible without being struck down by the law, it doesn't mean it's not sexy! I don't know why it's so important to you that since it's possible to do in public, that it's somehow not sexy, or SFW.

Something being sexy does not make it questionable. That's just not how any of that works. If you need your good christian standards for showing skin enforced you're definitely at the wrong place here, and that's not going to change after 12 years of this guideline being in place.

Watsit said:
At this point we're trying to gauge artist intent as to why the character's in skimpy beachwear, whether they're just trying to authentically depict a lax beach environment or because they find it hot, rather than looking at the fact that it's skimpy beachwear showing off more skin than normal in public.

Well, the guidelines directly refers to "obvious erotic or teasing intent", so, yes, intent matters. If the image itself isn't forcing attention to the swimsuit as being skimpy it's probably not a teasing or erotic intent.

Watsit said:
So you admit there are some common work places where it wouldn't be appropriate?

As it turns out most bikinis don't exactly have a huge amount of pockets to hold stuff, company policies are a thing. However, if you're in a work place you likely shouldn't be on our page anyway.

Watsit said:
So as long as the artist says "they're just being restless" or "they're just stretching", the apparent lewdness of an image can be ignored?

Intent from the image itself, not what the artist claims. An image taken from the back of a character does not mean the focus is a butt shot, just because breasts are visible and near the center doesn't mean they're the focus either.

@hiekkapillu "Force" "excluding" "insisting" That is what I call not having arguments but still wanting to make the other side look bad because you just want to win. I could easily say the same about you by switching the basis from "want change" to "want no change". It's not an argument.
Queue the "it's not because it's possible in public that it's not sexy".

You'd probably question a really attractive girl's choice if she was wearing a mini-bikini (or even micro) in any other public setting than an appropriate one (beach, for example). You'd probably also think something along the lines "that's/she's really hot". Doing so would be... what's the word... questionnable, don't you think?

Clawdragons said:
Viewing any sort of furry art in a lot of workplaces would be considered unacceptable. Heck, there are plenty of workplaces that will get angry at you for using the Internet for personal use to begin with.

Now you're just missing the point of the conversation entirely, trying to shut down conversation for an entirely different reason. (contexts where viewing any kind of media, furry or not, being prohibited aren't relevant to this conversation)

vex714 said:
and/or the female breast in a public place."

The female breast. Not just the female nipple. A mini-bikini definitely does that. (usually having a high amount of cleavage, sideboob and/or underboob (as well as risk of falling out, as mentioned, of course, but not sure about that being legally reprehensible)

Nevermind that though, I'm not trying to get the law to be used as the basis for deciding whether something is questionable or not, I was using it as an example, because if it's illegal (which is of course worse than questionnable), it's certainly at the very least questionnable.

vex714 said:
Now you're just making assumptions.

Obviously.. your point?

vex714 said:
Well mini bikini is still technically swimwear.

vex714 said:
(adding more to my lukewarmness)

I mean, you certainly delivered haha

But in all seriousness, please, we're talking about specifics. Taking the generalization to make your points seem valid is just.. well.. strawmanning. And that's getting us nowhere.

Less strawmanning/changing the subject, less picking the low-hanging fruits, more debating the actual arguments, please. Be more like NotMeNotYou and Watsit.

NotMeNotYou said:
Intent from the image itself, not what the artist claims. An image taken from the back of a character does not mean the focus is a butt shot, just because breasts are visible and near the center doesn't mean they're the focus either.

Then I'd be grateful if you can respond to my previous examples and explanations for why some of these are/should be questionable when taking the image itself at face value. I'll repeat it and add a bit more context so as to avoid having to search back through.

post #1972567 - The enlarged breasts, cleavage, and bra/lingerie are very prominently front and center. Similarly, the enlarged thighs, short skirt, and crossed legs are prominently right below it, angled perfectly to give a slight up-skirt shot that is conveniently darkened to obscure the genitals. Can you honestly tell me that, regardless of artist intent, the image itself is not of "revealing clothing with obvious erotic or teasing intent"? Or that the image does not have "suggestive posing where focus is drawn to breasts or covered/obscured genitals"?

post #1968444 - The view angled from behind with perspective to enlarge and place focus on the butt and thighs, skin tight clothing to give extra definition to the butt and thighs, as well as the raised tail bringing attention to the butt. Again, regardless if the artist intended to make it sexy or just show a character failing at yoga with good perspective, can you honestly say the image alone is not of a pose "where focus is drawn to the butt"?

post #1969608 - Side on view of a character thrusting their large breasts forward, exposing their uncovered sides, and butt pushed backward. That's not a normal standing posture, nor is it a way someone normally stretches. If they were, I'd expect the neck to be bent backwards as they looked upwards and the hands on the small of their back to push the torso into a more extended position, giving the whole spine a more C-like shape (for an anthro I may even expect the tail to be raised a bit, given it's an extension of the spine being stretched). Instead, it's just the breasts forward and butt back, hands relaxed at the sides, and the head looking toward the viewer with a relaxed, slightly sultry face. If that's not questionable, how isn't it "suggestive posing where focus is drawn to breasts, butt"?

@furryMaxine: Easy, I honestly think you should do a little more traveling. Expand your world views because not everyone shares your values. I'd recommend taking a class on art history or anthropology if you can't travel. They are wonderful. They taught me that that not every thing that I value holds true in other parts of the world. Learn about other people, it counts.

It just feels like you really are pushing your own values unto others.

Anyway, I have said it before. The images hosted here go through a process. They are tagged, rated, and approved. Approved by folks who are basically like judges. Judges who are impartial, open minded, and have common sense.
You can do one better (yes you) and contribute by going through some images yourself and helping out with tags and ratings. Give your edit reason. If the image is safe it's safe, if not, no big deal. Just follow the tagging guide as best you can.

"Edit reason (optional)"

It's at the bottom when you try to edit an images tags. (Not saying you should BTW, but you can)

You have talked about "the normal world". Well, that is your POV. You can't knock someone for having naturally pronounced features (swimsuit or otherwise). That way of thinking is not that far off from body shaming. We can't be narrow minded. You are looking for a defining line, a line that is by all regards ambivalent. I do believe that the previous posts are enough to let you decide for yourself where that line is.

furryMaxime said:
You'd probably question a really attractive girl's choice if she was wearing a mini-bikini (or even micro) in any other public setting than an appropriate one (beach, for example). You'd probably also think something along the lines "that's/she's really hot". Doing so would be... what's the word... questionnable, don't you think?

I would not give a half rat's ass. It covers everything that it is supposed to cover, so it's perfectly fine to wear. Depending on how far we are from nearest beach/pool, only part I might question is why someone is wearing swimwear outside of pool/beach, not the part of not covering up "properly". I live near a public beach, and in summers I regularly encounter people in tiny bikinis walking the streets and forest paths. It's really not that odd or unusual. What kind of clothes others choose wear is not my business and does not bother me in any way.

Also uh. I never look at girls in skimpy bikini and go "Wow! She's hot!" cuz I'm gay.

Can I say something?

After checking this question I had on whether artistic nudes should be questionable or exlicit, this came up in my head. This is why this site needs rating between "Safe" and "Questionable". Something that is safe enough, but the adult themes are minimal or implied. Much like the "Suggestive" from Derpibooru, or the "T" rating from Newgrounds, and TVTropes call it "Getting Crap Past the Radar"

AlexYorim said:
Can I say something?

After checking this question I had on whether artistic nudes should be questionable or exlicit, this came up in my head. This is why this site needs rating between "Safe" and "Questionable". Something that is safe enough, but the adult themes are minimal or implied. Much like the "Suggestive" from Derpibooru, or the "T" rating from Newgrounds, and TVTropes call it "Getting Crap Past the Radar"

While I am a supporter of nakedness and the artistic nude, that feels a little excessive. Questionable is supposed to be for things that aren't safe, but aren't explicit. I don't know if we need to complicate things further than that.

AlexYorim said:
Can I say something?

After checking this question I had on whether artistic nudes should be questionable or exlicit, this came up in my head. This is why this site needs rating between "Safe" and "Questionable". Something that is safe enough, but the adult themes are minimal or implied. Much like the "Suggestive" from Derpibooru, or the "T" rating from Newgrounds, and TVTropes call it "Getting Crap Past the Radar"

Newgrounds ETMA type ratings sort of like Anonomns WXYZ.

I tried looking up some info on ETMA and got this comment:

E - Everyone - Usually family friendly, cartoonish violence
T - Teens - Some to mild violence, some sexual content, mild audio
M - Mature - Mild sexual content, mild or explicit audio, Explicit Violence
A - Adult - Explicit sexual content (pretty much if 4 out of 5 Explicit content markers are marked as Explicit, it is auto-rated as adult)

Then there is this thread from late 2018 with some parallels to our current thread.

https://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1437473

i got dev stuff and am willing to help if that means gonna keep the safe tag ... cus im going with it\

zedsulyvahn said:
i got dev stuff and am willing to help if that means gonna keep the safe tag ... cus im going with it\

This is incomprehensible. What is this supposed to mean?

zedsulyvahn said:
i got dev stuff and am willing to help if that means gonna keep the safe tag ... cus im going with it\

Why did you bump this four year old thread... and what does this even mean?

maplebytes said:
Why did you bump this four year old thread... and what does this even mean?

Why did you reply to this four day old comment...