Should posts featuring genitals in a non sexual and non suggestive way be rated questionable?

Edit: Should the rules be changed?

Nope. The rules say that all depictions of genitalia must be rated explicit, regardless of context, including sheaths.

felix_nermix said:
Edit: Should the rules be changed?

Nah. People who don't want dongs in their face aren't going to care that they're flaccid and/or in sheaths, and not the focus of the picture. People who don't want to see pussies aren't going to care that they aren't wet and puffy with arousal, or actively getting penetrated by something. The quickest, easiest way for people to be able to exclude those things, is to leave genitals marked explicit regardless of context, so that they can just add "-rating:e" to a search, or blacklist "[insert gender here] rating:e"

jacob said:
The quickest, easiest way for people to be able to exclude those things, is to leave genitals marked explicit regardless of context, so that they can just add "-rating:e" to a search, or blacklist "[insert gender here] rating:e"

You can also add -genitals -sheath -rating:e to a search.

felix_nermix said:
You can also add -genitals -sheath -rating:e to a search.

The idea is to NOT force users to add more tags to their searches. While "[gender] -rating:e" is only ONE less tag, it's still fewer, and therefore, preferred.

It'd never work, because 'non-sexual and non-suggestive' is extremely subjective.

I think the only amount of wiggle room could maybe be with x_anus; it's automatically explicit atm, but it feels weird when otherwise perfectly tame images get tagged because of two innocuous lines. But I get not wanting the anus tag on non-explicit images... Maybe the implication of anus from x_anus could be removed?

felix_nermix said:
You can also add -genitals -sheath -rating:e to a search.

NO. Stop trying to make life harder on other users just to make things easier for you. This isn't the first time you've made a suggestion like this.

how is genitalia being explict even debatable? rated:e is basically everything which wouldn't be considered acceptable to be viewed in a public

versperus said:
how is genitalia being explict even debatable? rated:e is basically everything which wouldn't be considered acceptable to be viewed in a public

Genitalia on their own are not sexual, something like charging bull, the statue at wallstreet, or tanuki statues from japan, would not be considered sexual.

Its an overly american viewpoint.

Easy answer: No.

demesejha said:
Genitalia on their own are not sexual, something like charging bull, the statue at wallstreet, or tanuki statues from japan, would not be considered sexual.

Its an overly american viewpoint.

Conservative Islam coughs politely in your direction.

Definitions of the word "explicit" include "described or shown in realistic detail" and "having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted." (Emphasis mine.) The whole question is a waste of everyone's time.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/explicit
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explicit
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/explicit

ccoyote said:
Definitions of the word "explicit" include "described or shown in realistic detail" and "having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted." (Emphasis mine.)

Butts and breasts aren't rated explicit, even when clearly in view, despite being considered nudity. They can even be marked Safe (though depending on focus and amount of detail, may be considered Questionable). You can even have female-presenting nipples be not explicit. To be explicit here, mere nudity needs to specifically show or have a clear outline of a penis, balls, sheath, vagina/labia, or anus.

demesejha said:
Genitalia on their own are not sexual, something like charging bull, the statue at wallstreet, or tanuki statues from japan, would not be considered sexual.

Its an overly american viewpoint.

Explicit does not automatically equal sexual. Extreme violence also counts as explicit, and I could see a really graphic portrayal of a fairly standard surgical procedure potentially being rated as Explicit even though it's neither sexual nor violent.

As you point out, and unfairly ascribe to a solely American mindset, genitals need not be presented in a sexual manner. Despite this, some people will still perceive them so. I'm sure many of us as kids and teens went through a phase during which we tried to sneak peeks of the genitals of our preferred sex in any context be it classical art, Wall Street statues, or medical textbooks. Many people don't let go of that association despite becoming adults and getting to see the real thing regularly.

There's also an association with uncleanness thanks to the genitals also being excretory organs, be it for urine or menstrual blood. Throw in the anus, and you have another reason for an Explicit rating that's not sexual in nature.

You might not agree with the reasoning, but your thinking it stupid doesn't mean others think it only common sense. Nor is it exclusively American. There are people outside of the US and aren't Muslim who don't want to see genitalia or anuses either.

watsit said:
Butts and breasts aren't rated explicit, even when clearly in view, despite being considered nudity. They can even be marked Safe (though depending on focus and amount of detail, may be considered Questionable). You can even have female-presenting nipples be not explicit. To be explicit here, mere nudity needs to specifically show or have a clear outline of a penis, balls, sheath, vagina/labia, or anus.

Terrific, the site admin lump butts and breasts with arms and toes instead of genitalia. I don't think that negates the points I made in my last post, though.

ccoyote said:
Terrific, the site admin lump butts and breasts with arms and toes instead of genitalia. I don't think that negates the points I made in my last post, though.

Not saying it's the objective intention but I can see how it could be interpreted as sexual [acts or nudity] as opposed to sexual acts [or nudity] in that example.
I do find it interesting that of your three examples, one specifies sexuality, one specifies any open nudity, and the other could be interpreted into either camp.

Nudity isnt sexual. Breasts are not inherently sexual nor are butts.

Nudity that doesnt serve the prurient interest is likewise not sexual. You have to ask. Is it being used to explicitly entice?

Genuinely just out and out there is nothing sexual about a naked person. Its when that naked person performs sexual acts or poses in a way that intentionally entices that it becomes explicitly sexual. The ratings system is flawed.

A gelding horse in a field in the background of an image that happens to have a visible sheath which can be seen is enough to warrant explicit even if the wntire image is safe for work. That is a fundamentally broken design.

Yes the tags should be changed. Absolutely. There are actual examples of this happening already and the argument is that it simplifies tagging but it doesnt.

demesejha said:
Nudity isnt sexual.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SEXUAL TO BE EXPLICIT.

Sorry for the caps, but I really don't know how many different ways someone has to say that for it to be read, acknowledged, or understood.

ccoyote said:
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SEXUAL TO BE EXPLICIT.

Sorry for the caps, but I really don't know how many different ways someone has to say that for it to be read, acknowledged, or understood.

The problem is that that literally is whats being debated here and shouting doesnt make your stance more or less right.

The argument were making is that it shouldnt be considered explicit and the classification is fundamentally flawed.

demesejha said:
The problem is that that literally is whats being debated here and shouting doesnt make your stance more or less right.

The argument were making is that it shouldnt be considered explicit and the classification is fundamentally flawed.

I wasn't shouting; I was emphasizing because no one is listening. What you're arguing is not just the site's policy, but a question of changing the very definition of the word.

I agree with you that breasts, butts, and genitalia aren't sexual in every context. I'm trying to get across that that doesn't matter. The word "explicit" is still applicable and accurate whether the context is sexual or not.

This argument seems to pop up once or twice every year.

Long story short, we're lazy. We don't want the workload (settling user debates) that would come with allowing subjectivity to dictate ratings. So naturally, we try to minimize exceptions to rating standards.

Genitals? Explicit. Easy and intuitive.

One of the exceptions to ratings which we still see confusion over is breasts. Images with only exposed breasts getting rated Explicit instead of Questionable still happen, but it doesn't ruin the average user's day. On the technical side, it's nothing that a motivated tagger can't easily clean. As long as the barrier between Safe and Questionable/Explicit is maintained, we don't really care that much.

Anyways, with intuition and accessibility in mind, instead of overhauling the entire system, try making it easier for users of varying tastes to find exactly what they want to see, regardless of context. Here's a quick list of tags that would help.

• sheath
• fully_sheathed
• penis_tip
• flaccid
• penis_base
• casual_nudity
• social_nudity
• casual_exposure

Enforcement on those last three has definitely dwindled and they deserve some cleaning up.

Try learning how the game works before jumping to the conclusion that it's broken and needs to be fixed.

2188239:4 (https://e621.net/posts/2188239)
Knotty Curls 1 month ago
wow, revolutionary https://e621.net/forum_topics/26445?page=1#forum_post_290905[/quote]

For someone so lazy, you seem to really have a stake in this one.

So, how does that apply to about 5 pixels as pointed out? Should the horse be wearing underwear or is that too questionable? Or should it continue to be counted among the searches for explicit feral horses, hidden from those actually searching for some nice safe works forced to be marked questionable or subsequently "Explicit" for what makes up 0.0001% of the picture. So much "wow", its so "revolutionary". It's so clearly not broken and has no need to be fixed.

Now, as a related question, am I going to get Punished for Questioning the "Admin" on this, or is it just going to be a difference of opinion?

Also, another question, What is THIS Sites Definition of "Explicit" as that Clearly isn't defined without needing a link or a C&P. It doesn't match such definitions as most other sites as this would seem.

Edit: Found them
Questionable (Mature)
"slight cameltoes and/or non-detailed bulges"
Pretty sure that "pussy" counts as a "non-detailed bulge". Are "Cameltoes" not pussys even when slight?

The idea that its laziness is kind of an excuse I think. Honestly I mentioned it before already but rating things explicit by virtue of genitals being in the image is fundamentally flawed because context is a thing that exists.

The entire https://e621.net/posts?tags=barely_visible_genitalia tag should be considered that as an example. This speaks nothing of the concept of nonsexual nudity.

One of the main issues is I think the naming system itself. "Explicit" carries connotations. Questionable is a meaningless word.

demesejha said:
One of the main issues is I think the naming system itself. "Explicit" carries connotations. Questionable is a meaningless word.

"Questionable" carries connotations too, if you're going to phrase it like that.

demesejha said:
This speaks nothing of the concept of nonsexual nudity.

It's really impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you, because you don't listen. How many times have people already said in this very thread, sex doesn't matter in the definition of the word "explicit"? You don't listen. You just pick your position and keep inanely hammering at it.

ccoyote said:
It's really impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you, because you don't listen. How many times have people already said in this very thread, sex doesn't matter in the definition of the word "explicit"? You don't listen. You just pick your position and keep inanely hammering at it.

Im not gonna stoop to personal attack but picking out a single line from someone's statement and ignoring the rest really doesnt reflect well in an adult discussion.

The definitions of the words here are not what is being physically debated and ignoring that is a choice on your part. Im not "picking a position" any more than you are. Not to mention that's what debates are for. Im not going to suddenly devils advocate away my position because someone passed me a dictionary.

Have you considered social context? Have you considered the concept of paired meanings? Have you attempted to see anything here beyond that dictionary meaning?

No?

Lets be blunt.

Adjective: Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
2: Describing or representing sexual activity in a graphic fashion.

Noun: The closing words of a text, manuscript, early printed book, or chanted liturgical text.

Thats a literal definition. Even the dictionary definition STATES and REQUIRES graphic quality and sexual content.

Your entire argument from the get go is built on a faulty premise so stop railing when you don't even know what position you're defending.

Even ignoring that:
The issue here is that that's not how the rating system has been shown to work with the "questionable" tag. Or the explicit tag.

The Idea here is that its "Safe" meaning there's no sexual content or anything of the source.
Questionable is supposed to be used for when that Safe content is clearly kink material.
And Explicit is for when the content is graphic in its depictions of material.

The Misguided assumption that genitals automatically mean explicit comes from an intentional tacit misuse of the word. And further, even by the shockingly narrow definition of the word you propose.

5 pixels of the outline of a vulva is not explicit. Its not bared directly. Its barely visible. Its barely even in the image and is only there because the anatomy would be physically wrong.
A gelding in a field, long in the background where the entire space of their genitals is a 4 pixel sheath, is not explicit. It is neither the focus nor the point.
A statue of a man on a stallion in a park is no more explicit for featuring the genitals. Its anatomically correct and nothing more.

The simple fact of the matter is you're wrong, and you are bending and misusing the definition to push a narrative.

This is a purely western society thing. This is something that you have "learned" not the actual fact at hand.

First, that was not an attack; it was an observation. It was accurate, and I stand by it.

Second, you can't complain that I've ignored portions of your argument when you've ignored 100% of mine.

Finally, you've called my premise faulty when you've literally misquoted and misrepresented the dictionary definition of the word.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word's definition is "b: open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" (emphasis mine).

I agree with you that nudity is not a problem, but you're talking about a puritanical societal issue that is beyond the scope of this site's policies. If you want to change that, get involved in law and politics, not e621's rules and forums.

ccoyote said:
First, that was not an attack; it was an observation. It was accurate, and I stand by it.

Second, you can't complain that I've ignored portions of your argument when you've ignored 100% of mine.

Finally, you've called my premise faulty when you've literally misquoted and misrepresented the dictionary definition of the word.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word's definition is "b: open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality" (emphasis mine).

I agree with you that nudity is not a problem, but you're talking about a puritanical societal issue that is beyond the scope of this site's policies. If you want to change that, get involved in law and politics, not e621's rules and forums.

Webster is not the only dictionary in the world.

Believe it or not. Its not a misquote.

https://i.imgur.com/BqpAfG8.png

Google the word and this is the result.

One last thing, if this argument comes up enough that its had multiple threads over a decade, maybe its time to re-evaluate the system.

post #2188239
post #1677560
post #1587898
post #1793726
post #1793733
post #1416207
post #1368472
post #1516493
post #648945
post #871465

You really mean to tell me that all of those examples are explicit. But these following clearly intentionally sexual images are "safe"?

post #2244743
post #2026666
post #1651198
post #1191884
post #1044058
post #692258

This?
post #2115004

Is
post #2248631

All
post #1633573 (Focused breast expansion where its ripping her clothing)

Safe
post #1581296 (A little girl in her panties!)

And on e926 where allll the kiddies can see it.

Oh no this one clearly depicts a RECTUM! This should be EXPLICIT!
post #2023433

But no keep going on about dictionary definitions.

This entire tag. https://e621.net/posts?tags=foot_focus+rating%3Asafe
This entire tag. https://e621.net/posts?tags=rating%3Asafe+inflation

post #1490194 Is this really safe because its Null??? He's naked! Nakedness is a requirement for explicit. And further, looking at the thumbnail looks like theres male parts there until you click on it.

ccoyote said:
Definitions of the word "explicit" ... "having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted." (Emphasis mine.)

The argument falls apart under even the most basic scrutiny.

If Phraggle's content was posted on e6
https://va2.ib.metapix.net/files/full/3125/3125561_Phraggle_blam_11aaa.jpg
https://va2.ib.metapix.net/files/full/3114/3114789_Phraggle_blam_13a.jpg
https://va2.ib.metapix.net/files/full/3114/3114797_Phraggle_bbllam_1111.jpg

It would all be listed as safe.

The system is broken. Fix it.

Oh and one last thing. Law is not something I can change as a single woman, this is a website run democratically under a group of volunteers. This entire forum exists to discuss the rules of this site so I dont know where you get off with

ccoyote said:
If you want to change that, get involved in law and politics, not e621's rules and forums.

Oh and

ccoyote said:
Second, you can't complain that I've ignored portions of your argument when you've ignored 100% of mine.

I havent ignored it. Ive stated its wrong, and WHY its wrong multiple times.

I didn't know that this:

ccoyote said:
It's really impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you, because you don't listen.

wasnt an attack, really could have fooled me.