I don't know what to put in here lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toplessness

Social norms around toplessness vary by context and location. Throughout history, women's breasts have been featured in art and visual media, from painting and sculpture to film and photography, and such representations are generally defended on the grounds of artistic merit.

Consider, for example, that Michelangelo's historical nude sculptures can appear in movies without causing the movie to become R-rated.
Most of these would be considered even more explicit than mere exposed breasts.

zoidbergfann1 said:
I don't know what to put in here lol

Women are equal to men, men can go around topless. I agree that it should be a safe rating like for men.

Yeah, they should be rated safe.

Because female nipples make up 2 of 3 Satan's doorbells and as such must be kept hidden from innocent eyes at all costs.

aobird said:
Women are equal to men, men can go around topless. I agree that it should be a safe rating like for men.

Women always could in certain cultures as well, such as ones in Africa. Where did others go so wrong?

In fact, I for one think clothing serves to enslave us to some degree!

Women are absolutely equal, and in my opinion, they should be allowed to go around without shirts just like men can.

Unfortunately, workplaces and bosses are absolutely not equal, and that's why breasts get tagged questionable instead of safe.

I have to admit I'm curious about when breasts went from no big deal to horrifically scandalous? Maybe around the Victorian era with all its puritanism?

Let us not forget that until the 1930s, men were also forbidden to be topless in public (at least in America)

size_matters said:
Let us not forget that until the 1930s, men were also forbidden to be topless in public (at least in America)

And before that, they were required to be in nude when swimming.

You can not be charged with sexual child abuse for breastfeeding. I think breasts and the like should be rated safe.

felix_nermix said:
You can not be charged with sexual child abuse for breastfeeding. I think breasts and the like should be rated safe.

You can be fired for looking at boobs on your phone at work. What do you propose for people who would like to be able to browse safe artwork in their spare time, who would run across pictures of naked breasts if your opinion were taken seriously?

ccoyote said:
You can be fired for looking at boobs on your phone at work. What do you propose for people who would like to be able to browse safe artwork in their spare time, who would run across pictures of naked breasts if your opinion were taken seriously?

Just exclude the breasts tag.

ccoyote said:
You can be fired for looking at boobs on your phone at work. What do you propose for people who would like to be able to browse safe artwork in their spare time, who would run across pictures of naked breasts if your opinion were taken seriously?

Just exclude the breasts tag.

felix_nermix said:
Just exclude the breasts tag.

Why make it their responsibility to do that when the current system works well enough already?

ccoyote said:
You can be fired for looking at boobs on your phone at work.

You can also be fired for browsing non-work related sites at work. No boob-pics required.

thirtyeight said:
I have to admit I'm curious about when breasts went from no big deal to horrifically scandalous? Maybe around the Victorian era with all its puritanism?

Precisely. In many countries it's one Victorian value that people still cling to, though we've got rid of most of them. Such as the taboo of having sex outside of marriage.

genjar said:
You can also be fired for browsing non-work related sites at work. No boob-pics required.

Yes, but that's a different situation altogether and unrelated to the breast question. That situation is a matter of self-discipline or skilled sneaking on the part of the employee.

For the (probably thousands of) employees who can browse art at work, not having to worry about naked boobs showing up is helpful.

felix_nermix said:
Just exclude the breasts tag.

Breasts wiki:
If breasts are present in a scene, they should be tagged no matter if the character is clothed or nude.

Are you trolling or genuinely clueless?

magnuseffect said:
Are you trolling or genuinely clueless?

I think they meant using -breasts In the search bar...

siral_exan said:
I think they meant using -breasts In the search bar...

Except the conversation is specifically about uncovered breasts and post ratings.
-breasts would remove a big chunk of female rating:s, and moving full-featured uncovered breasts into rating:s and telling people to just deal by using -breasts is also asking them to just lock out most of what is currently female rating:s

magnuseffect said:
Except the conversation is specifically about uncovered breasts and post ratings.
-breasts would remove a big chunk of female rating:s, and moving full-featured uncovered breasts into rating:s and telling people to just deal by using -breasts is also asking them to just lock out most of what is currently female rating:s

My understanding is that they meant people who want to look at safe art without breasts at work should open the site and browse images that are "rating:s -breasts." My contention is that the current system works, and they shouldn't have to take the extra step.

ccoyote said:
My understanding is that they meant people who want to look at safe art without breasts at work should open the site and browse images that are "rating:s -breasts." My contention is that the current system works, and they shouldn't have to take the extra step.

But the breasts tag includes covered breasts, which are already rating:s unless there's particularly notable nipple_outline or other factors.
I'm trying to support your position here by pointing out -breasts is not a fix for the proposed scenario. (Because breasts does not inherently mean nude/partial_nudity or distinguish between featured/featureless breasts when either of those tags apply)

magnuseffect said:
But the breasts tag includes covered breasts, which are already rating:s unless there's particularly notable nipple_outline or other factors.
I'm trying to support your position here by pointing out -breasts is not a fix for the proposed scenario. (Because breasts does not inherently mean nude/partial_nudity or distinguish between featured/featureless breasts when either of those tags apply)

We need some changes in the site in order to be able to search using logical operators.

magnuseffect said:
But the breasts tag includes covered breasts, which are already rating:s unless there's particularly notable nipple_outline or other factors.
I'm trying to support your position here by pointing out -breasts is not a fix for the proposed scenario. (Because breasts does not inherently mean nude/partial_nudity or distinguish between featured/featureless breasts when either of those tags apply)

felix_nermix said:
We need some changes in the site in order to be able to search using logical operators.

We already do search using logical operators (and/or/not). I'm guessing what you meant was actually grouping of logical predicates:
(x AND y) or (a AND b)

Making the 'or' syntax less weird would be a nice first step towards that.

magnuseffect said:
But the breasts tag includes covered breasts, which are already rating:s unless there's particularly notable nipple_outline or other factors.
I'm trying to support your position here by pointing out -breasts is not a fix for the proposed scenario. (Because breasts does not inherently mean nude/partial_nudity or distinguish between featured/featureless breasts when either of those tags apply)

Got it! I wasn't arguing against your point; I just didn't understand how it followed what we were discussing. Thanks for clearing it up. You're right, and that makes the idea an even worse one: naked breasts should not be rated safe.

felix_nermix said:
We need some changes in the site in order to be able to search using logical operators.

I don't understand what logical operators have to do with this discussion at all.

felix_nermix said:
-nipples -nipple_outline rating:s

That puts even more of a burden on people when the current system already works fine. It's not better.

felix_nermix said:
-nipples -nipple_outline rating:s

Now you're cutting out sfw topless men

Here's a simple solution for equality: rate exposed male nipples as Questionable, too. After all, they're likely to be as enticing to the homosexual and (presumably) female crowd as the female versions are to those interested in them. :p

thirtyeight said:
I have to admit I'm curious about when breasts went from no big deal to horrifically scandalous? Maybe around the Victorian era with all its puritanism?

Long before then, I should think. Muhammad (6th-7th centuries AD) specifically coded women covering up their bodies so their physical charms wouldn't distract him from his religious contemplations. Considering he had a bunch of wives, he wasn't exactly prudish. I imagine the women covering up thing pre-existed him, especially among the Abrahamic religions and their preoccupation of forcing people to contemplate the "correct" version of God at the point of a sword if need be. Body shaming grew out of that religious "need".

There is also the fact that it was chillier in the recent past, often due to volcanic eruptions and other factors. The simple need to keep warm meant that skimpy clothing simply wasn't fashionable.

In truth, the Puritans weren't anti-sex. Quite the contrary, in fact, as they believed women would be Jesus' wives in the afterlife and that the menfolk's job was in part to satisfy them until then. Husbands could get excommunicated if they couldn't keep the wife happy in bed. The Victorians weren't anti-sex, either. The raunchiness of their pornography puts modern furry porn to shame.

@Clawstripe: @thirtyeight: Saint Augustine of Hippo was railing against sexual thinking all the way back in 400 CE. Much of today's puritanical moralizing about sex and sexuality (including women's breasts, regardless of context) can be traced to him, as well.

@clawstripe Just so we're clear, we are talking about the same victorians that left food out for a day or two before considering it ready for consumption
because they thought consuming fresh food would lead to gluttony, right?

PS. They also placed the nursery several rooms away from the bedroom so that babies could cry without anyone having to hear it, as they thought seeing to child's needs when they cry would lead to said child growing up spoiled.

magnuseffect said:
Now you're cutting out sfw topless men

That is what logical operators are for.
-nipples&&female -nipple_outline&&female rating:s
To be honest, i think logical operators should be implemented reagardless of breast's rating.
@Clawstripe said male nipples should be rated questionable, and makes sense since male breasts can produce milk, too. I think breasts, nipples and the like should be rated safe. I think finding breasts lewd is similar to finding feet lewd.

felix_nermix said:
That is what logical operators are for.
-nipples&&female -nipple_outline&&female rating:s
To be honest, i think logical operators should be implemented reagardless of breast's rating.
@Clawstripe said male nipples should be rated questionable, and makes sense since male breasts can produce milk, too. I think breasts, nipples and the like should be rated safe. I think finding breasts lewd is similar to finding feet lewd.

Logical operators (and, or, not) ARE present, as I stated. Your use of terminology is ignorant.

in male nipples, the AND is implicit (a common convention for search engines). in ~male ~nipples, OR is explicitly specified. In male -nipples the NOT is explicitly specified. It is only the syntax to group clauses, or if you prefer to be more literal, 'subordinate' or 'nested' clauses, that is not available in e621's search engine.

notmenotyou said:
Because female nipples make up 2 of 3 Satan's doorbells and as such must be kept hidden from innocent eyes at all costs.

What's the third Satan's doorbell then?

genjar said:
Such as the taboo of having sex outside of marriage.

Which ultimately led to an STD epidemic that continues to this day. But that's perfectly fine... right?

randomguy85 said:
What's the third Satan's doorbell then?

clitoris perhaps?

felix_nermix said:
That is what logical operators are for.
-nipples&&female -nipple_outline&&female rating:s
To be honest, i think logical operators should be implemented reagardless of breast's rating.
@Clawstripe said male nipples should be rated questionable, and makes sense since male breasts can produce milk, too. I think breasts, nipples and the like should be rated safe. I think finding breasts lewd is similar to finding feet lewd.

At least I understand why you've brought up logical operators now, but it still puts the onus of effort on users. Not to mention that not everyone here is a coder, so the solution then becomes even harder and more exclusive. I still haven't seen any response at all to that point.

We agree with each other that breasts aren't lewd, but that isn't the only reason the safety rating exists.

randomguy85 said:
What's the third Satan's doorbell then?

bipface said:
clitoris perhaps?

That is correct.

shitposter said:
[Extramarital sex] ultimately led to an STD epidemic that continues to this day.

The name fits the logic.

shitposter said:
Which ultimately led to an STD epidemic that continues to this day. But that's perfectly fine... right?

Imma be real with you chief, premarital sex was always the rule, not the exception. People just put more effort into pretending during certain eras.

thirtyeight said:
Imma be real with you chief, premarital sex was always the rule, not the exception. People just put more effort into pretending during certain eras.

Or places.

mairo said:
Yeah, they should be rated safe.

They should be rated explicit imo

coolboi822 said:
They should be rated explicit imo

"Yeah we should just remove Questionable rating imo"
sound stupid also why you reviving an old ass forum

lilyanida said:
"Yeah we should just remove Questionable rating imo"
sound stupid also why you reviving an old ass forum

They're a practicing necromancer?

snpthecat said:
They're a practicing necromancer?

heck you got a good point

Genuine question before the thread dies again: What about a post where a character has noticeably large breasts but they are still completely covered with no visible nipple outline? Is that still safe?

garfieldfromgarfield said:
Genuine question before the thread dies again: What about a post where a character has noticeably large breasts but they are still completely covered with no visible nipple outline? Is that still safe?

I believe hyper still falls under being Questionable as per the "all content with slight (but obvious) fetishistic material" clause under the Ratings page.
I don't think it would be Safe per se, even when fully clothed with no outline. But when in doubt, look at how all similar content is rated.

Edit: Apparently, under the breasts wiki, you would still tag it as Safe regardless of size, even with subtle nipple outline (for fully clothed & non-sexual scenarios). If it is exposed, partially or fully, then you would tag it as Questionable.