On reading the ratings page and on checking this user's strange edits on changing the rating system to "explicit" because of middle fingers or "Twilight Sparkle having wings" (which is weird; might be because of "wingboners"), are featureless crotches, innuendo, and vulgar language, even considered "safe"?

I'm not that prudish or trying to reform the site's rating system, or anything, but these things are questioning me at the moment. It makes me question if big breasts without nipples are "safe" or "questionable"...

alexyorim said:
are featureless crotches, innuendo, and vulgar language, even considered "safe"?

Featureless crotches are:
post #2523471 post #2529998
If you see a crotch and it doesn't have any explicit features (crotch tufts don't count as a feature, I don't think), it's a featureless crotch.

Innuendo and vulgar language are text, which is generally considered external information. You can't tag male/male just because of what the text says, so I don't think you can pick a rating on the same reason. Especially if a post is in a different language that may or may not be accurately translated, or which could be translated with or without vulgarity if the translator wants.

That might be ratings abuse. I certainly fail to see how pegasus or winged unicorn wings could be rated explicit. A wingboner would be like saying a euphemism like "darn" or "by the blue". It's specifically meant to express something mature in a way that's acceptable for polite company.

The same goes for innuendo, although if it's really noticeable and in your face (and not in a text form), innuendo might be better off as Questionable, but that can be subjective.

Featureless crotches and breasts are definitely meant to be Safe. After all, Bugs Bunny yomps around with a featureless crotch in his cartoons, and he's considered Safe.

As it says in the guide featureless breasts/crotches are safe unless there's suggestive posing, which there's not really any in the edits made by that user, so those should all be rated safe. I imagine if the featureless breasts are being grabbed or being smashed in somebody's face that may also fall under questionable.

A "wingboner" alone is just spreading wings so.. that's safe unless there's some sort of aroused or looking_pleasured sort of thing going on too.

Stuff like a middle finger or somebody saying "fuck off" is safe imo, but if there was an otherwise safe image with a speech bubble giving a verbose description of how much the character wants to get fucked in the ass, that would not be safe.

watsit said:
You can't tag male/male just because of what the text says, so I don't think you can pick a rating on the same reason.

Big meh. If a character describes, in graphic and vulgar detail, how they want another character to bone them, how would that be safe for work?

strikerman said:
Big meh. If a character describes, in graphic and vulgar detail, how they want another character to bone them, how would that be safe for work?

How would that work across culture and language? Calling someone a cunt is quite vulgar in America, but in the UK, while rude it's apparently not as bad. Similarly, "bloody" (e.g. "you bloody wolves") is rather tame by American standards, but pretty vulgar in the UK. How would you rate an image with the something like ちんちん求める? Depending entirely on context, which can be from other images or be left to reader interpretation, it can be translated as "I want you to beg." or "I want your dick."

strikerman said:
Big meh. If a character describes, in graphic and vulgar detail, how they want another character to bone them, how would that be safe for work?

rating:safe profanity

That's how.

lafcadio said:
rating:safe profanity

That's how.

Profanity doesn't equal raunchy sex descriptions.

watsit said:
You can't tag male/male just because of what the text says, so I don't think you can pick a rating on the same reason.

To address the elephant in the room that everybody always ignores, shouldn't we be able to use text to tag things that aren't physical things/characters? For example, shouldn't a listing of prices for sex acts warrant a prostitution tag? post #171402 post #2371669 The first of those two pictures is even used as an example image in the prostitution wiki.

Anyways, part of me in spirit wants to agree with Strikerman that dialogue can warrant rating:q, but I realize that doing so would be pretty subjective, and we generally try to avoid subjectivity in tagging guidelines. So it's probably best to not count dialogue at all for tagging ratings. EDIT: I take this back, as explained in my next comment

@Strikerman Where would you draw the line?

crocogator said:
@Strikerman Where would you draw the line?

How would you determine which images are rating:s and which are rating:q?

post #2371669 "Handjob - $1000 Blowjob - $2000 Sex - $10000 +Kiss $500 +Touch $500 +Dirty Talk $1000"
post #2022989 "Raep Me! Hard.♡"
post #1897801 "Why do you keep talking about my sister and mom's hips and feet?"
post #436383 "Fuck I want to fuck the fuck out of him and I want him to look me dead in the eyes while we fuckin' do it."
post #90020 [translated] "So, you like being called a "pervert"? Ah that must be it♪ You just love that don't you?♪ 'Cause you really are a pervert!"
post #2169602 "I mean... I don't sell cars, but I'd fuck your wife."

IMO I'd mark all of them as questionable except maybe the dalmatian post (but I'd err towards questionable).

strikerman said:
IMO I'd mark all of them as questionable except maybe the dalmatian post (but I'd err towards questionable).

That a simple answer, and I think it works. When I think about it, the defining characteristic of these pictures' dialogue is that they're lewd, which makes tagging them as rating:q not really any more subjective than the suggestive tag. I changed my mind; I vote lewd dialogue = rating:q.