While browsing today, I was surprised to find a series of (I thought) very tame drawings and animations, such as
https://e621.net/posts/3044735
https://e621.net/posts/1714804
https://e621.net/posts/3828774
https://e621.net/posts/3819875
https://e621.net/posts/3805248
that nevertheless were rated Explicit or (for the first one, Questionable) - and, per how the current guidelines read, correctly so.

However, I would suggest that an exception is in order. When a drawing, animation, etc. depicts a feral animal that has zero explicit or implicit sexual content - no sexual interaction or content, no arousal, no focus on the genital/anal areas, no provocative poses, or anything of the like - and the artist was just trying to draw the animal realistically (or, in the case of the last one, match the character's depiction in a children's cartoon!) - I don't think the Explicit rating ought to apply.

I thus suggest something like the following be be added to the "Safe (General)" rating guideline:
"realistic but incidental/nonfocal depictions of a feral animal's anatomy, if that animal is not aroused or in a sexual/explicit situation"

I agree with you, but this should be questionable at most, rather than safe.

There’s a major slippery slope that can be had here, i feel.

I think those would be considered a form of tasteful/artistic nudity, no? Kinda like how some statues or paintings visible to the public irl have visible genitals and alike.

AFAIR, e6's ratings are supposed to be as context-insensitive as possible to avoid people being massive headaches over whether their highly specific image deserves an exception, ad infinitum. rather than moderate each and every post to make sure it's properly rated, therefore damaging part of the reason users can go and edit ratings, the ratings guidelines were created and a non-exhaustive list was made to try and provide a list of what should fall under each rating. because yea, although a X-shaped anus is something people could see as safe, it's easier to just lump them together with anus than deal with users willing to be a pain in the ass over whether their hyper-sexualized but technically safe X-anus gets a pass.

I can appreciate wanting to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, and to allow no "wiggle room". But I personally don't buy the "slippery slope", "questionable" or "tasteful nudity" arguments. (That said, I DID grow up on a farm, so...) When a G rated movie (Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron) would get an Explicit here, and when something we pretty much all see every day in an entirely nonsexual context is called Explicit, the guideline is wrong and needs revised. It also, I would argue, makes "Explicit" more likely to be ignored.

There must be a way to word an exception that would be unambiguous and not create a slippery slope.

bfg said:
While browsing today, I was surprised to find a series of (I thought) very tame drawings and animations, such as
https://e621.net/posts/3044735
https://e621.net/posts/1714804
https://e621.net/posts/3828774
https://e621.net/posts/3819875
https://e621.net/posts/3805248
that nevertheless were rated Explicit or (for the first one, Questionable) - and, per how the current guidelines read, correctly so.

However, I would suggest that an exception is in order. When a drawing, animation, etc. depicts a feral animal that has zero explicit or implicit sexual content - no sexual interaction or content, no arousal, no focus on the genital/anal areas, no provocative poses, or anything of the like - and the artist was just trying to draw the animal realistically (or, in the case of the last one, match the character's depiction in a children's cartoon!) - I don't think the Explicit rating ought to apply.

I thus suggest something like the following be be added to the "Safe (General)" rating guideline:
"realistic but incidental/nonfocal depictions of a feral animal's anatomy, if that animal is not aroused or in a sexual/explicit situation"

I subjectively feel that number 4 here is questionable at least, but I agree the rest should probably be considered safe.

bfg said:
I can appreciate wanting to be as clear and unambiguous as possible, and to allow no "wiggle room". But I personally don't buy the "slippery slope", "questionable" or "tasteful nudity" arguments. (That said, I DID grow up on a farm, so...) When a G rated movie (Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron) would get an Explicit here, and when something we pretty much all see every day in an entirely nonsexual context is called Explicit, the guideline is wrong and needs revised. It also, I would argue, makes "Explicit" more likely to be ignored.

There must be a way to word an exception that would be unambiguous and not create a slippery slope.

You just haven't experienced it yet. Although, experience has taught me that it's often better to use the mission creep analogy. XD

siral_exan said:
because yea, although a X-shaped anus is something people could see as safe, it's easier to just lump them together with anus than deal with users willing to be a pain in the ass over whether their hyper-sexualized but technically safe X-anus gets a pass.

i'm gonna back this point up; this post is hella sus:

post #3770042

y'all could disagree, but if it weren't for no-exceptions scoring we can argue all we want about weather it's sus or not and only have an infinite tag war to show for it

nevannedall said:
I subjectively feel that number 4 here is questionable at least, but I agree the rest should probably be considered safe.

That one accurately reflects how a large-framed horse (think Percheron, Clydesdale, etc.) looks.

I actually have seen the "slippery slope" play out before - so I HAVE experienced it. Inevitably, someone will try to push the envelope and need reigned in. Still, I haven't yet heard an argument that convinces me that a G-rated cartoon containing elements we all see every day should be Explicit while a bare woman's breasts are Questionable. And I still believe a clearly worded, unambiguous exception would prevent this.

I'm also not advocating for an endless lineup of exceptions - just one that, frankly, I'm surprised even is being argued about because (to me) it is so obvious, and that needs to be done or the utility of the Ratings system is reduced. Except for this one case, I believe the Ratings system is correct. I do believe something along the lines of what I initially wrote could work; after all, the Violent Content guidelines are clearly written to prevent a slippery slope, despite being situational and having gradations.

As far as that Pokemon example goes: that one would still be Explicit under my proposal because it fails the "incidental depiction" requirement - the anus is the focus. Plus, a Pokemon is not a feral animal. I'm open to better wording but the point is that I intentionally tried to write it so the only exception would be on real, realistically depicted animals where the genitals/anus/etc. are not the focus and not unrealistically sized, aroused, etc., and they're not mating or in any kind of implicit or explicit sexual situation.

bfg said:
But, I haven't yet heard an argument that convinces me that a G-rated cartoon containing elements we all see every day should be Explicit while a bare woman's breasts are Questionable. And I still believe a clearly worded exception would prevent this.

Because this is a site with a large emphasis on porn. The expectations of many people coming here would be in light of more adult activities, so how would you differentiate these posts:
post #3819875 post #3710921 post #3828641
when they all show genitals on a non-sexual, naturalistic way? Personally, I'd even say that first one is rather suggestive given how apparent the sheath is and the character looking at the viewer with half-closed/bedroom eyes. It's pretty easy to see something as suggestive when you're expecting it to be, and it would be easy to over-compensate and mark it as safe since you're trying to look at it objectively. But once genitals are on display, for a site like this it's best to not take any chances.

I personally would argue the reverse: marking something as Explicit when it isn't causes more people to simply ignore the Explicit rating. Why pay attention to it when it's meaningless or misapplied? It means more when correctly applied.

I also don't buy the "it's pretty easy to see something as suggestive when you're expecting it to be". A cartoon Donald Duck with no pants, drawn in Disney's style, is suggestive to some, despite being an explicit exception in the Safe section.

I agree that this could introduce some difficulty in interpretation if not properly worded, but again, the latter two would - in what I attempted to write - still be rated Explicit because (1) they aren't real feral animals and (2) the drawings are intentionally done to render the genitals / anus a focal point, rather than (as I tried to put it) "incidental depiction", i.e. just happens to be there in a pose not trying to make it the center of attention.

Anyway, it appears this proposal doesn't have the support I thought it would. I thought this was a no-brainer, honestly, but apparently it isn't. So, unless more support is found, it can be dismissed.

bfg said:
Why pay attention to it when it's meaningless or misapplied?

Blacklists - they need to be functional in a failsafe manner!

I also don't buy the "it's pretty easy to see something as suggestive when you're expecting it to be". A cartoon Donald Duck with no pants, drawn in Disney's style, is suggestive to some, despite being an explicit exception in the Safe section.

Featureless_* should be a big clue, right?

dripen_arn said:
i'm gonna back this point up; this post is hella sus:

post #3770042

y'all could disagree, but if it weren't for no-exceptions scoring we can argue all we want about weather it's sus or not and only have an infinite tag war to show for it

This quote implies any sexual innuendo should be rated explicit because the post is considered explicit by the way that Eevee faces the viewer on its back. if it's that so then why arent everything tagged with bedroom_eyes explicit?

Maybe that wasn't the point you were making, so elaborate as right now you sound contradictory.

watsit said:
Because this is a site with a large emphasis on porn. The expectations of many people coming here would be in light of more adult activities, so how would you differentiate these posts:
post #3819875 post #3710921 post #3828641
when they all show genitals on a non-sexual, naturalistic way? Personally, I'd even say that first one is rather suggestive given how apparent the sheath is and the character looking at the viewer with half-closed/bedroom eyes. It's pretty easy to see something as suggestive when you're expecting it to be, and it would be easy to over-compensate and mark it as safe since you're trying to look at it objectively. But once genitals are on display, for a site like this it's best to not take any chances.

If anything these posts should be questionable and if people are bothered by genitalia it should be blacklisted accordingly. See? no double-standard on my part.If theres no visible sex or any sort of focus on the dirty bits then it should be questionable, otherwise it should be explicit.

By 'visible sex' Imean:
#1. masturbation
#2. sex
#3. cumming

By 'focus on dirty' bits I mean:
#1. penis_focus
#2. hyper_penis
#3. spread_anus

It's not a complete list, but it shuld make a good basis.

wolfmanfur said:
This quote implies any sexual innuendo should be rated explicit because the post is considered explicit by the way that Eevee faces the viewer on its back. if it's that so then why arent everything tagged with bedroom_eyes explicit?

Because eyes aren't genitals.

wolfmanfur said:
If theres no visible sex or any sort of focus on the dirty bits then it should be questionable, otherwise it should be explicit.

By 'visible sex' Imean:
#1. masturbation
#2. sex
#3. cumming

By 'focus on dirty' bits I mean:
#1. penis_focus
#2. hyper_penis
#3. spread_anus

I doubt most people would agree with making
post #3735394 post #3698189 post #3721576 post #3623346 post #3312877
only "questionable", given your definitions.

wolfmanfur said:

This quote implies any sexual innuendo should be rated explicit because the post is considered explicit by the way that Eevee faces the viewer on its back. if it's that so then why arent everything tagged with bedroom_eyes explicit?

Maybe that wasn't the point you were making, so elaborate as right now you sound contradictory.

i ain't saying that the composition of the art (besides the butthole) should inherit an explicit rating on it's own, i just brought up post #3770042 as an example of a piece that would be constantly fluctuating between safe and questionable for god knows how long if this site allowed for vibe-based tagging

i just agree with the people that run this site that treating all instances of non-sexual nudity the same binary way a film rating association would is worth it if it means streamlining the tagging process, cutting back on continuous arguments and faff like this very forum topic, and keeping that faff away from the posts themselves

watsit said:
Because eyes aren't genitals.

Dripen called the art 'hella sus' because of the pose.I reckon there's plenty of 'hella sus' art that's rated questionable.
There's no genitalia on this either. The only thing taboo is the pose and the barely visible butthole.

I doubt most people would agree with making
post #3735394 post #3698189 post #3721576 post #3623346 post #3312877
only "questionable", given your definitions.

Minors in fetish arts and naked children in drawings are controversial, so that is not a good example.I recall furs got banned from e6 for not blacklisting 'young' and then voice their anger in the comment section. When you factor in these details 'I doubt most people-' is not a good excuse to apply here.

would most people care if these characters were suddenly aged up to or not?

dripen_arn said:
i ain't saying that the composition of the art (besides the butthole) should inherit an explicit rating on it's own, i just brought up post #3770042 as an example of a piece that would be constantly fluctuating between safe and questionable for god knows how long if this site allowed for vibe-based tagging

i just agree with the people that run this site that treating all instances of non-sexual nudity the same binary way a film rating association would is worth it if it means streamlining the tagging process, cutting back on continuous arguments and faff like this very forum topic, and keeping that faff away from the posts themselves

Thta's all I wanted to hear, thank you. I agree that the site should hold strict guidelines on what ratings should go by rather than rely on feelings, I don't disagree with that. the topic is 'Suggested revision to content ratings guidelines' because the person who opened it contested what tags are considered explicit. I believe genitalia-related tags as well as anus should always be marked "questionable" because safe is most likely too soft, but explicit seems excessive for all situations without any context. If it is artistic nudity then a rating that's meaning to go for porn is not a great idea.

And that would still work to retain the streamlining process. Make tags focusing solely on genitalia and tags involving sex or gross fetishes have the explicit rating, so when someone publishes a drawing with a huge spreaded pair of buttcheeks, it gets the explicit rating, but if instead they post a drawing where the anus is simply visible even barely so, it gets the questionable rating.

wolfmanfur said:
Dripen called the art 'hella sus' because of the pose.

With a simple x-like anus, the likes of which people think should be Safe, and a pose that could also be considered Safe on its own. But the two details together makes the image appear sexual.

wolfmanfur said:
Naked children in drawings are controversial, so that is not a good example.

Which your definition made no mention of. So now you already need to modify your definition to include "young" looking characters, which is its own can of worms. People already complain about young being tagged on characters they don't think count as young, and vice-versa. You're now including the vagueness of the "young" tag to also determine whether some depictions of genitals should be explicit or not. Meilin Lee (turning_red) would be a field day.

Also, NSFW ferals are controversial too, potentially illegal in some places. As it is, to non-furries, even nude adult anthro characters are controversial, due to the animal aspects making it border zoophilia. Why is only one controversial aspect considered and not the others?

wolfmanfur said:
I recall furs got banned from e6 for not blacklisting 'young' and then voice their anger in the comment section.

People have been banned for not blacklisting feral, too.

wolfmanfur said:
would most people care if these characters were suddenly aged up to or not?

Don't know. But there are definitely people that don't care whether a character is aged up or looks older, only if they're canonically young. And some people don't care whether a character is canonically young or not, only if the character looks young to them. And there are those that if either the character looks young regardless of canon, or is canonically young regardless of how they look, it's just as bad.

watsit said:
With a simple x-like anus, the likes of which people think should be Safe, and a pose that could also be considered Safe on its own. But the two details together makes the image appear sexual.

And the admins think it should be explicit. Everyone think of something that doesn't automatically make it correct.

Which your definition made no mention of. So now you already need to modify your definition to include "young" looking characters, which is its own can of worms. People already complain about young being tagged on characters they don't think count as young, and vice-versa. You're now including the vagueness of the "young" tag to also determine whether some depictions of genitals should be explicit or not. Meilin Lee (turning_red) would be a field day.

This was specifically intended to tell you "Their opinion doesn't matter, they're mad at minors in drawings on a porn site anyway" in a succinct and polite way. The 5 drawings you posted should be questionable, I am consistent and I make no exception. Doesn't matter if they're minors, ferals, etc. If it is not pornographic, itshouldn't be explicit, simple as that.

Also, NSFW ferals are controversial too, potentially illegal in some places. As it is, to non-furries, even nude adult anthro characters are controversial, due to the animal aspects making it border zoophilia. Why is only one controversial aspect considered and not the others?

People have been banned for not blacklisting feral, too.

Don't know. But there are definitely people that don't care whether a character is aged up or looks older, only if they're canonically young. And some people don't care whether a character is canonically young or not, only if the character looks young to them. And there are those that if either the character looks young regardless of canon, or is canonically young regardless of how they look, it's just as bad.

I'm not even responding to this you're straying way too far from the original topic at hand. I will only say that the opinions of normies on twitter matter so little to me, and so it should to you too.

On the bare women's breasts issue: this is, believe it or not, another example of the "no exceptions" policy in action. Either nipples themselves are inherently explicit in all circumstances, or in none of them. For e621 in particular we would have to consider whether this also applies to female nipples on a feral, and male and female nipples are indistinguishable when their owner is morbidly obese. Remember how widely Tumblr was laughed at when they announced a ban on "female presenting nipples"?

wat8548 said:
On the bare women's breasts issue: this is, believe it or not, another example of the "no exceptions" policy in action. Either nipples themselves are inherently explicit in all circumstances, or in none of them. For e621 in particular we would have to consider whether this also applies to female nipples on a feral, and male and female nipples are indistinguishable when their owner is morbidly obese. Remember how widely Tumblr was laughed at when they announced a ban on "female presenting nipples"?

None, it should be questionable instead. For both males and females.

Oh and I do remember when tumblr was laughed at, not just for this either, but for their algorithm that randomly filtered non-adult works.

wolfmanfur said:
None, it should be questionable instead. For both males and females.

OK, but this contradicts your other stance that anuses should be sometimes questionable and sometimes explicit.

wat8548 said:
OK, but this contradicts your other stance that anuses should be sometimes questionable and sometimes explicit.

Quote me where I said that.

I think you're talking about my mention of spreading a pair of buttocks which is an action in a sex scene, in the same way that if the nipples were actively being sucked it should be explicit. The nipples themselves arenm't explicit.

Genitalia, anuses, nipples and etc should always be questionable if nothing is done to them, it's called artistic nudity.

This has... gone far from what I initially read. Sigh...

fuck it, i agree with wolfmanfur in a way now

buttcheeks? funny, cartoonish, safe

x anus? innocent, ya see it everyday, questionable

• anus? vile, gross, any anus with more wrinkles in it than 4 is messed up, explicit

buttcheeks with an x anus in them? disgusting, poop comes out of that, explicit

come at me with any flaws in my tagging logic

Creating exceptions to these hard and fast rulings creates uncertainty about the ruling of artwork, because the interpretations of intent are going to be different from person to person. That people are confused about the ratings means that they are thinking too hard about them, when the whole point has been to make them as easy to follow as possible by not having any exceptions. I believe that creating exceptions based on intent introduces a lot of additional ambiguity, but doesn't solve anything but occasional confusion by people who haven't read the rating help text.

That there is already discussion and disagreement about which ratings these should obtain underlines that there is wildly different interpretations to how these drawings are seen by different people.

kiranoot said:
Creating exceptions to these hard and fast rulings creates uncertainty about the ruling of artwork, because the interpretations of intent are going to be different from person to person. That people are confused about the ratings means that they are thinking too hard about them, when the whole point has been to make them as easy to follow as possible by not having any exceptions. I believe that creating exceptions based on intent introduces a lot of additional ambiguity, but doesn't solve anything but occasional confusion by people who haven't read the rating help text.

That there is already discussion and disagreement about which ratings these should obtain underlines that there is wildly different interpretations to how these drawings are seen by different people.

Yeah, was kind of implying that. You want to shave the hair, not the skin.

alphamule said:
This has... gone far from what I initially read. Sigh...

What'd i say at the start?

Also, when did kiranoot step down from admin?

wolfmanfur said:
I think you're talking about my mention of spreading a pair of buttocks which is an action in a sex scene, in the same way that if the nipples were actively being sucked it should be explicit. The nipples themselves arenm't explicit.

So what, you're going to take a protractor to the character's legs to determine the angle between "spread" and "questionable"? Also, considering the right to breastfeed in public is still a matter of ongoing IRL debate, I wouldn't want to imply that the presence of a mouth on a tit is enough to make it explicit.

dripen_arn said:
buttcheeks? funny, cartoonish, safe

They can be: butt rating:s

dripen_arn said:
x anus? innocent, ya see it everyday, questionable

Not sure I'd call these "innocent":
post #3296600 post #3302316 post #1806062

Since all an x_anus is, is an anus portrayed by an x-like marking, that doesn't say much about the innocence of the anus. You'll also then run into questions of when it counts as an x_anus, like
post #3770042
How straight do the lines need to be? What crossing points are acceptable with more bendy lines?

dripen_arn said:
buttcheeks with an x anus in them? disgusting, poop comes out of that, explicit

How defined do the buttcheeks need to be for it to become a pooping hole?
post #1426820 post #2262128

wat8548 said:
So what, you're going to take a protractor to the character's legs to determine the angle between "spread" and "questionable"? Also, considering the right to breastfeed in public is still a matter of ongoing IRL debate, I wouldn't want to imply that the presence of a mouth on a tit is enough to make it explicit.

This is decided by what is tagged "spread_butt".

There's a wiki page for it that clearly defines it: https://e621.net/wiki_pages/1610

I know for a fact that right now the rules on x_anus tag is that it is always explicit content, a rule based on the idea that all genitalia is inherently sexual.

I don't agree with this because it doesn't coincide with author intent and differing cultural norms around drawing, and most of all a lot of the drawings tagged x_anus are images that could pass as Safe but Questionable. Not all drawing with x_anus is drawn to be explicit, some are drawn that way for comedic effect, some are drawn that way by stylistic choice, some are drawn that way because in their art culture drawing x buttholes on animals is an accepted norm especially paired with a chibi artstyle..

I agree with the fact that all x_anus drawings are automatically disqualified from being rated "Safe", however I believe other drawings should be rated "Explicit" or "Questionable" on a case by case basis, with two basic requirements of no other genitalia being present and the anus is truly a minimalist and not detailed.

Here are some examples of images I think should absolutely be considered "Questionable" rather than "Explicit".
The character is not in a sexual situation, they are clearly drawn without sexual intent either as a cute stylistic/cultural choice or for comedic intent. Your parents would not bat an eye.
https://e621.net/posts/3368160
https://e621.net/posts/3926372
https://e621.net/posts/3825083
https://e621.net/posts/3401719
https://e621.net/posts/3811911
https://e621.net/posts?tags=yencatx+rating%3Aexplicit
https://e621.net/posts/1175282
https://e621.net/posts/894740
https://e621.net/posts/2902502
https://e621.net/posts/2886229
https://e621.net/posts/2886211
https://e621.net/posts/1997213
https://e621.net/posts/1164269
https://e621.net/posts/1175256
https://e621.net/posts/1904226
https://e621.net/posts/3545636
https://e621.net/posts/2999702

Here are some examples of images I think reasonably should be considered "Questionable" rather than "Explicit".
The character here have suggestive posing or seductive looks, clearly meant to entice or imply sexual intent. Your parents would raise an eyebrow.
https://e621.net/posts/3376158
https://e621.net/posts/3760369
https://e621.net/posts/3813335
https://e621.net/posts/568865
https://e621.net/posts/596860
https://e621.net/posts/2903909
https://e621.net/posts/1251302
https://e621.net/posts/877877
https://e621.net/posts/1054495
https://e621.net/posts/1879305
https://e621.net/posts/3436616
https://e621.net/posts/3147139
https://e621.net/posts/3212190
https://e621.net/posts/3551357
https://e621.net/posts/3785919
https://e621.net/posts/2336589

Here are some examples of images with x_anus and no genitalia that I think should still be rated "Explicit".
They have implied or actual sex acts or fetishes, or they have barely_visible_genitalia or minimalist genitals which while similar in style does inherently have more sexual implications. Your parents would not approve of these.
https://e621.net/posts/2046543
https://e621.net/posts/2655717
https://e621.net/posts/3536168
https://e621.net/posts/3685215
https://e621.net/posts/3280032
https://e621.net/posts/3937747
https://e621.net/posts/3941116
https://e621.net/posts/3868167
https://e621.net/posts/3614033
https://e621.net/posts/3569226
https://e621.net/posts/2370556
https://e621.net/posts/2120131
https://e621.net/posts/34283
https://e621.net/posts/3615512

Now just for the sake of comparison to what is already considered "Questionable": Here are examples of images with visible breasts that clearly have explicit intent and yet are rated "Questionable". Your parents would demand you take these posters off the walls.
https://e621.net/posts/3950278
https://e621.net/posts/3950774
https://e621.net/posts/3883831
https://e621.net/posts/3950281
https://e621.net/posts/3889297
https://e621.net/posts/3898383
https://e621.net/posts/3855012
https://e621.net/posts/3910523
https://e621.net/posts/3886577
https://e621.net/posts/3899679
https://e621.net/posts/3947516
https://e621.net/posts/3870034
(Not hating on any of these or implying tagging on breasts need to be revised, but I think it is hypocritical to think of these as less explicit than the above examples)

So why do I think we need this change?
Because it would make the tagging system more accurate to what the user is searching for, and for how the artist intended their audiences to view it. I constantly see people question and be confused by why something as trivial as an X can make an entire drawing explicit. I see non-sexual drawings made by East Asian artists in a classic anime or chibi artstyle where in their culture their drawing would be completely safe but here it is tagged "Explicit". I see drawings with an x butthole clearly intended to be silly and dumb rather than sexual, or images with x buttholes that are only intended to be cute and slightly suggestive. I think being able to tag these as "Questionable" would be much more fair for those that drew these images, and for the people that are looking for such images. It would expand the use of the "Questionable" tag and make it more accurate.

watsit said:
They can be: butt rating:s

Not sure I'd call these "innocent":
post #3296600 post #3302316 post #1806062

Since all an x_anus is, is an anus portrayed by an x-like marking, that doesn't say much about the innocence of the anus. You'll also then run into questions of when it counts as an x_anus, like
post #3770042
How straight do the lines need to be? What crossing points are acceptable with more bendy lines?

How defined do the buttcheeks need to be for it to become a pooping hole?
post #1426820 post #2262128

I've said it earlier in this thread and will say it again: The pose, THE FREAKING POSE. An anus being visible shouldn't warrant an explicit rating, that's the point you keep missing either intentionally or unintentionally. The first 4 drawings each haveexplicit tags like "exposed" and "seductive", tags other than "anus" because the character in each of them teases the viewer. One of them has a child post where the x_anus isn't there to begin with, it's rated explicit too (and correctly so) post #3296600, but again there's no anus on the picture. do you understand now? This right there is inherently sexual, which alsi means it is inherently explicit.

The other 2 1 drawings under should be questionable, not explicit. Look at how different these 2 1 drawings are compared to the horny bait you have posted right above.

Edit: After further inspection, the eevee drawing on the left should stay explicit whereas the comic should be questionable.

You and Wat ae making this issue more complicated than it is and this is because of shit like this that the admins will glance over the thread and think to themselves that they have made the right choice because clearly nobody can get it right, so it is less of a headache for everypne to make x_anus explicit, might as well put every asses in the same basket regardless of context.

The explicit rule sould be summed as "For anything intended for adult, not-safe-for-work viewing. If it is not pornographic then it isn't explicit." and the site has plenty of tags to make the distinction between a pornographic artwork and a non-pornographic artwork: seductive, spread_butt, sucking_penis, bedroom_eyes, rimming, sex, cum, ejaculation, masturbation, orgasm, footjob, buttfucking, masochism, pain, public_humiliation, extreme_french_kiss, blushing_profusely, looking_back_at_vewer, etc.

wolfmanfur said:
I've said it earlier in this thread and will say it again: The pose, THE FREAKING POSE.

The pose is nothing special in those images, except maybe the first one. If you've ever had a cat or dog, it's not uncommon to find them randomly in similar poses. If it weren't for genitals/the x_anus being visible, they'd all be suitable for a Safe rating, except maybe the first and last example.

wolfmanfur said:
The first 4 drawings each haveexplicit tags like "exposed" and "seductive", tags other than "anus" because the character in each of them teases the viewer.

Only the first has "exposed", and incidentally, the wiki for that says

Posts in which a character's genitalia is showing, but not actively presented or in use.

Typically, a character is considered exposed while they are restrained, or unaware of their exposure, or have had their clothes shifted or removed by either accident or force.

Exposed is only applicable because an x_anus is treated as an anus/genitals, which is automatically Explicit. And the seductive tag seems to be misapplied, considering exposed is largely incompatible with seductive:

A character posing, talking, or behaving in a way that is intended to (sexually) tempt or attract someone.

If someone's genitals are exposed unaware or by force, they wouldn't be intending to tempt someone with said genitals. And none of those images seem to be a character acting "in a way that is intended to (sexually) tempt or attract someone" (except maybe the first one), but rather a general pose that happens to have an x_anus visible or as focus.

wolfmanfur said:
One of them has a child post where the x_anus isn't there to begin with, it's rated explicit too (and correctly so) post #3296600, but again there's no anus on the picture. do you understand now?

It's explicit because of the panties bulge, which isn't visible in the panty-less version with the x_anus. They're both explicit for different reasons. It's not the only time a clothed version ended up explicit for reasons that don't apply to an unclothed version.
post #3113109 post #3113112

wolfmanfur said:
You and Wat ae making this issue more complicated than it is and this is because of shit like this that the admins will glance over the thread and think to themselves that they have made the right choice because clearly nobody can get it right, so it is less of a headache for everypne to make x_anus explicit, might as well put every asses in the same basket regardless of context.

We're hardly making the issue more complicated. This site defines visible genitals as inherently Explicit, an anus is considered genitals, and an x_anus is an anus. That's it, not very complicated at all. In trying to add exceptions to have the rating lessened depending on the pose, whether it's "seductive" or "pornographic", you're making the line blurrier and more difficult to contend with. As you point out, there's clear disagreement on what should make a post with an x_anus explicit, and as there's still no clear line on when an anus can constitute an x_anus vs a minimally defined normal anus, it's best to err on the side of caution.

wolfmanfur said:
The explicit rule sould be summed as "For anything intended for adult, not-safe-for-work viewing. If it is not pornographic then it isn't explicit." and the site has plenty of tags to make the distinction between a pornographic artwork and a non-pornographic artwork: seductive, spread_butt, sucking_penis, bedroom_eyes, rimming, sex, cum, ejaculation, masturbation, orgasm, footjob, buttfucking, masochism, pain, public_humiliation, extreme_french_kiss, blushing_profusely, looking_back_at_vewer, etc.

You may want to take another look over that list. seductive, ..., bedroom_eyes, ..., pain, public_humiliation, extreme_french_kiss, blushing_profusely, looking_back_at_vewer aren't always pornographic, and are more than possible to be in SFW, child-friendly, non-Explicit artwork. Let's not forget things like extreme gore or kinks, which can make stuff adult-only or NSFW without being pornographic too.

watsit said:
The pose is nothing special in those images, except maybe the first one. If you've ever had a cat or dog, it's not uncommon to find them randomly in similar poses. If it weren't for genitals/the x_anus being visible, they'd all be suitable for a Safe rating, except maybe the first and last example.

I reckon none my pets ever blushed at me. The pose is a factor, but the fact they are looking back at me while visibly blushing would cause all 5 of these drawings to be at least questionable. On top of that there is the perspective, all of this combined makes all these artworks risky which are fine to be explicit or to the very least questionable.

Only the first has "exposed", and incidentally, the wiki for that says
Exposed is only applicable because an x_anus is treated as an anus/genitals, which is automatically Explicit. And the seductive tag seems to be misapplied, considering exposed is largely incompatible with seductive:
If someone's genitals are exposed unaware or by force, they wouldn't be intending to tempt someone with said genitals. And none of those images seem to be a character acting "in a way that is intended to (sexually) tempt or attract someone" (except maybe the first one), but rather a general pose that happens to have an x_anus visible or as focus.

That is just wrong, if anus was a genital it would implicate genital like pussy and penis already do, but it does not.
And I will add that even by the definition you copied from the wiki all these images feature a feral being seductive. When somebody shows their butt to me I will be (sexually) tempted by that person. That holds true for both Eevee pictures, the Glaceon, and the rabbit character. The Shinx I don't think it applies for them. Also, all the 5 drawings has the character blushing and at least 1 of them has the bedroom eyes which is implicated to seductive anyway. To top it off, as it is worth reiterating, they are all blushing. This is not normal by any stretch of the imagination and without the anus I would think that at most the most appropriate rating would be either questionable or explicit, never safe.

It's explicit because of the panties bulge, which isn't visible in the panty-less version with the x_anus. They're both explicit for different reasons. It's not the only time a clothed version ended up explicit for reasons that don't apply to an unclothed version.
post #3113109 post #3113112

I don't know if you're right and that's a rule that's simply not being followed or you are making this up. Plenty of pictures with a visible bulge are rated questionable, not explicit.
panty_bulge -rating:explicit
I am sure the explicit rating on this drawing comes specifically from being a sexual innuendo with the pose, the blush, etc.

We're hardly making the issue more complicated. This site defines visible genitals as inherently Explicit, an anus is considered genitals, and an x_anus is an anus. That's it, not very complicated at all. In trying to add exceptions to have the rating lessened depending on the pose, whether it's "seductive" or "pornographic", you're making the line blurrier and more difficult to contend with. As you point out, there's clear disagreement on what should make a post with an x_anus explicit, and as there's still no clear line on when an anus can constitute an x_anus vs a minimally defined normal anus, it's best to err on the side of caution.

Already made my point clear, it's not worth repeating twice why it's wrong.

You may want to take another look over that list. seductive, ..., bedroom_eyes, ..., pain, public_humiliation, extreme_french_kiss, blushing_profusely, looking_back_at_vewer aren't always pornographic, and are more than possible to be in SFW, child-friendly, non-Explicit artwork. Let's not forget things like extreme gore or kinks, which can make stuff adult-only or NSFW without being pornographic too.

All of them are always questionable at minimum and oftentimes explicit, the ones that are safe are mistagged or misrated. For example, this is currently mistagged as seductive post #3945861, this is misrated post #3936137 and this is both mistagged and misrated simultaneously (wasn't there that rule about all foot fetish content being questionable?) post #3930021. The only tags that can be safe within context are blushing_profusely and looking_back_at_viewer which I put last for that reason, but a good number of them are explicit. If a post has both anus and anyone of these tags, it is safe to assume it is an explicit post, otherwise it is questionable.

This is a simple system and one where most people would be happy because as of now there are non-pornographic posts rated explicit because of an anus, I don't see how that makes more sense than an artwork that's very 'risky' rated safe by your standard.

wolfmanfur said:
I don't know if you're right and that's a rule that's simply not being followed or you are making this up. Plenty of pictures with a visible bulge are rated questionable, not explicit.
panty_bulge -rating:explicit
I am sure the explicit rating on this drawing comes specifically from being a sexual innuendo with the pose, the blush, etc.

About that, I checked the post you added in your reply post #3113109 and it had detailed_bulge which seems to be the reason why it is explicit. It is not explicit for the bulge itself, but because it is detailed. Now, that's bound to be used consistently, how detailed does a bulge need to be in order to tag it and have the explicit rating? Nevertheless, that post post #3296594 does not have a detailed bulge, it is not among the tags. So, you were completely wrong, but I must admit I don't agree with detailed_bulge being explicit.

wolfmanfur said:
I reckon none my pets ever blushed at me. The pose is a factor, but the fact they are looking back at me while visibly blushing would cause all 5 of these drawings to be at least questionable. On top of that there is the perspective, all of this combined makes all these artworks risky which are fine to be explicit or to the very least questionable.

To me, if those images didn't have an x_anus, I wouldn't bat an eye at them being set to Safe. I wouldn't go out of my way to change them, except the first (to Questionable since it has a crotch focus with a slight reddening around it) and the last (since it also has what could be inferred as barely_visible_balls or perineum).

wolfmanfur said:
That is just wrong, if anus was a genital it would implicate genital like pussy and penis already do, but it does not.

Right, the ratings help page calls them "genital orifices-- genital slits/vents, cloaca, and anus ...", which is always Explicit.

wolfmanfur said:
And I will add that even by the definition you copied from the wiki all these images feature a feral being seductive. When somebody shows their butt to me I will be (sexually) tempted by that person.

A view of the butt doesn't mean they're showing it "in a way that is intended to (sexually) tempt or attract someone." Except for the first (which does look like they're showing it intentionally), they're in a relatively normal relaxed pose with a viewpoint that happens to put the butt in focus. The one with eevee on their back, has the eevee looking more confused or inquisitive than seductive. If I stand behind someone and look at their butt, that's not them tempting me their butt, even if they look back at me in embarrassment. It's not being raised or pushed toward the viewer as if trying to make it more visible.

wolfmanfur said:
I don't know if you're right and that's a rule that's simply not being followed or you are making this up. Plenty of pictures with a visible bulge are rated questionable, not explicit.

A bulge can be either, depending on how big or detailed it is. The general rule of thumb I go by is, if you can distinguish the balls from the penis or perineum (or the left testicle from the right), regardless of size, it should probably be Explicit. If it looks big enough to possibly be an erection or half-erect underneath, regardless of detail, it should probably be Explicit. It's it's just a small nondescript lump, it can be Questionable.

wolfmanfur said:
All of them are always questionable at minimum and oftentimes explicit, the ones that are safe are mistagged or misrated.

We were talking about tags that provide a "distinction between a pornographic artwork and a non-pornographic artwork" and "if it is not pornographic then it isn't explicit." But you're now saying these tags can sometimes be Questionable/non-pornographic rather than Explicit/pornographic, deflating the argument (and showing it's not as simple as you're trying to suggest). But even then you're wrong on some of them which can sometimes be Safe too. There is no reason whatsoever that bedroom_eyes, pain, public_humiliation, blushing_profusely, or looking_back_at_viewer must be Questionable at minimum. Often? Sure. Most of the time? Perhaps. But not always, these ones aren't incorrectly tagged or rated.

Here's a post with an even less detailed anus than an X, and nothing else visible other than a bulge:

post #3424591

Do you think this should be Questionable?

Don't forget that the genitals aren't exclusively for sex. They're also for the elimination of bodily wastes – urine and the menses – which are considered socially unclean and dirty. That and its close proximity to the genitals and their added sexual stigma is why the anus gets bumped up to Explicit, despite not being genitals proper.

The reason why X anus is Explicit is for consistency's sake. Despite being typically used as a PG variant acceptable for children, an X anus is still an anus. If anuses, no matter what they look like, are Explicit all the time, it's easier on tagging and related things such as the blacklist. If X anus's rating is an exception to the "always Explicit" rule, where would you draw the line? When is this X anus okay but that X anus should be Explicit? As has been noted by all sides of the argument, people can't agree on that. We'd be having Rating wars, and the Admins would have to waste time dealing with the fallout from those (and you know people will deliberately try to push the envelope simply for the sake of giving everyone else headaches). As it is now, you see an anus – BAM! – it's Explicit. No arguments, no subjective assessments, no confusion. Sure, it's silly when it comes to many X anuses, but users are frequently far, far sillier. Sacrifices have to be made to keep the silliness at manageable levels.

wat8548 said:
Here's a post with an even less detailed anus than an X, and nothing else visible other than a bulge:

post #3424591

Do you think this should be Questionable?

I won't budge from my position. I consider questionable to be for "anything that can potentially offend". Clawstripe said it best as Anus is a dirty part, so there is no reason for it to be safe. Even without the anus, there is a visible bulge on your picture which by the current rules would be questionable or explicit as well.

clawstripe said:
Don't forget that the genitals aren't exclusively for sex. They're also for the elimination of bodily wastes – urine and the menses – which are considered socially unclean and dirty. That and its close proximity to the genitals and their added sexual stigma is why the anus gets bumped up to Explicit, despite not being genitals proper.

The reason why X anus is Explicit is for consistency's sake. Despite being typically used as a PG variant acceptable for children, an X anus is still an anus. If anuses, no matter what they look like, are Explicit all the time, it's easier on tagging and related things such as the blacklist. If X anus's rating is an exception to the "always Explicit" rule, where would you draw the line? When is this X anus okay but that X anus should be Explicit? As has been noted by all sides of the argument, people can't agree on that. We'd be having Rating wars, and the Admins would have to waste time dealing with the fallout from those (and you know people will deliberately try to push the envelope simply for the sake of giving everyone else headaches). As it is now, you see an anus – BAM! – it's Explicit. No arguments, no subjective assessments, no confusion. Sure, it's silly when it comes to many X anuses, but users are frequently far, far sillier. Sacrifices have to be made to keep the silliness at manageable levels.

Then, make all the genitals questionable and make the explicit rating exclusive for tags related to pornography. That is consistent and folks would be happier.

watsit said:
A view of the butt doesn't mean they're showing it "in a way that is intended to (sexually) tempt or attract someone." Except for the first (which does look like they're showing it intentionally), they're in a relatively normal relaxed pose with a viewpoint that happens to put the butt in focus. The one with eevee on their back, has the eevee looking more confused or inquisitive than seductive. If I stand behind someone and look at their butt, that's not them tempting me their butt, even if they look back at me in embarrassment. It's not being raised or pushed toward the viewer as if trying to make it more visible.

They are all looking at me expectantly while blushing knowing exactly what they want the viewer do to them. To exemplify why they should be explicit: to a normie this would be creepy or upsetting, they would not care about the anus being there. By contrast, the comic looks normal.

When a character has a blush and is staring at someone in anime that's because they fell in love with that other person, the rule would equally apply here. If the characters felt threatened, they wouldn't be blushing and they wouldn't have their eyes half closed while lying on their back,they would look panicked with wide open eyes. To be honest, I want blush to be questionable at minimum rather than safe based on the current rules because I quite frankly don't think most if not all the pictures posted to e6 of a character blushing are sfw, there are maybe a few rare exception from japanese furry artists, but they are almost all rated safe despite of the flagrant sexual innuendo.

We were talking about tags that provide a "distinction between a pornographic artwork and a non-pornographic artwork" and "if it is not pornographic then it isn't explicit." But you're now saying these tags can sometimes be Questionable/non-pornographic rather than Explicit/pornographic, deflating the argument (and showing it's not as simple as you're trying to suggest). But even then you're wrong on some of them which can sometimes be Safe too. There is no reason whatsoever that bedroom_eyes, pain, public_humiliation, blushing_profusely, or looking_back_at_viewer must be Questionable at minimum. Often? Sure. Most of the time? Perhaps. But not always, these ones aren't incorrectly tagged or rated.

And I said anus + any of these tags = explicit, that is consistent. Think of it like 1+1=2.

Bedroom_eyes should always be questionable for the same reason blush should commonly be questionable, read what I have said above.
Pain should definitely always be questionable at minimum, so does violence and I would say blood if it wasn't for the fact it gets tagged on small bruises which is safe in my opinion, so "blood" would be the only exception to the rule.
I should have said "public_nudity" instead of "public_humiliation", I get where you're getting at there. I have seen so many public_humiliation involving nudity or diapers that I forgot it could be used for things other than these.

As it currently stands, the rating system is useless,I don't ever use it I rely on tags to find what I want and to filter out nsfw content when I'm in public spaces.

clawstripe said:
Don't forget that the genitals aren't exclusively for sex. They're also for the elimination of bodily wastes – urine and the menses – which are considered socially unclean and dirty. That and its close proximity to the genitals and their added sexual stigma is why the anus gets bumped up to Explicit, despite not being genitals proper.

The reason why X anus is Explicit is for consistency's sake. Despite being typically used as a PG variant acceptable for children, an X anus is still an anus. If anuses, no matter what they look like, are Explicit all the time, it's easier on tagging and related things such as the blacklist. If X anus's rating is an exception to the "always Explicit" rule, where would you draw the line? When is this X anus okay but that X anus should be Explicit? As has been noted by all sides of the argument, people can't agree on that. We'd be having Rating wars, and the Admins would have to waste time dealing with the fallout from those (and you know people will deliberately try to push the envelope simply for the sake of giving everyone else headaches). As it is now, you see an anus – BAM! – it's Explicit. No arguments, no subjective assessments, no confusion. Sure, it's silly when it comes to many X anuses, but users are frequently far, far sillier. Sacrifices have to be made to keep the silliness at manageable levels.

Clearly it doesn't make tagging easier if content that is clearly not explicit still gets rated explicit and people are generally very very confused why some drawings are considered explicit when it is at the very most slightly immature.

I really don't think the rating system should be designed around people being lazy, it should be designed around being accurate.

clawstripe said:As it is now, you see an anus – BAM! – it's Explicit. No arguments, no subjective assessments, no confusion. Sure, it's silly when it comes to many X anuses, but users are frequently far, far sillier. Sacrifices have to be made to keep the silliness at manageable levels.

There is literally no good reason this exception should be made only for breasts. Laziness is an extremely bad excuse for keeping a system inaccurate.

wolfmanfur said:
Then, make all the genitals questionable and make the explicit rating exclusive for tags related to pornography. That is consistent and folks would be happier.

This makes a lot more sense to me. It makes no sense at all that only breasts can be considered tasteful nudity by default.
Make it so all nudity can be considered tasteful nudity ie "Questionable" but is always not able to be "Safe", then the "Explicit" rating will be context sensitive.

That would promote a much more consistent tagging system.

wolfmanfur said:
I won't budge from my position. I consider questionable to be for "anything that can potentially offend". Clawstripe said it best as Anus is a dirty part, so there is no reason for it to be safe. Even without the anus, there is a visible bulge on your picture which by the current rules would be questionable or explicit as well.

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if you thought it should be rated Safe, I asked you if you thought it should be rated Questionable instead of Explicit.

wolfmanfur said:
Then, make all the genitals questionable and make the explicit rating exclusive for tags related to pornography. That is consistent and folks would be happier.

That would be hilariously inconsistent. Pornography is famously impossible to define, one of the better-known legal opinions on the matter being "I know it when I see it". Just look at tags like foot_fetish and tickling to see thousands of posts that wouldn't be considered pornographic in the traditional sense.

wolfmanfur said:
When a character has a blush and is staring at someone in anime that's because they fell in love with that other person, the rule would equally apply here. If the characters felt threatened, they wouldn't be blushing and they wouldn't have their eyes half closed while lying on their back,they would look panicked with wide open eyes. To be honest, I want blush to be questionable at minimum rather than safe based on the current rules because I quite frankly don't think most if not all the pictures posted to e6 of a character blushing are sfw, there are maybe a few rare exception from japanese furry artists, but they are almost all rated safe despite of the flagrant sexual innuendo.

"Blushing is inherently NSFW" is not an opinion I would be comfortable expressing immediately after "pornography is easy to objectively define".

wat8548 said:
You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask you if you thought it should be rated Safe, I asked you if you thought it should be rated Questionable instead of Explicit.

Yet, that is what your question was leading up to: "Here's a post with an even less detailed anus than an X" as if how detailed an anus is should change the rating at all when I said all anuses should be questionable. At this point, you are just arguing for the sake of argument.

That would be hilariously inconsistent. Pornography is famously impossible to define, one of the better-known legal opinions on the matter being "I know it when I see it". Just look at tags like foot_fetish and tickling to see thousands of posts that wouldn't be considered pornographic in the traditional sense.

Clearly, it's much easier to define than you let it seem since the admins defined a fuckhole as explicit regardless of the context it is used in.

Except foot_fetish and tickling aren't pornographic. As a matter of fact, most of the images tagged under these are questionable, not explicit. Explicit is the de-facto for pornographic content here.

"Blushing is inherently NSFW" is not an opinion I would be comfortable expressing immediately after "pornography is easy to objectively define".

Not to mention the fact that I said earlier explicit = pornography. I said blush should be questionable given the massive amount of 'hella sus' art there exists with this tag and questionable is not for pornography, only explicit is. At most, fetishes and ecchi should be questionable which is a category blush falls onto.

Anyway that's not the point, the ratings here are useless, that is the point of this post and my replies to this post.

wolfmanfur said:
Clearly, it's much easier to define than you let it seem since the admins defined a fuckhole as explicit regardless of the context it is used in.

Yes, because the presence or absence of an anus in an image is an objective standard that everyone can agree on the answer to. We are not going to switch over to a "well I think it looks like porn"-based standard, no matter how much you post. The site's rules are optimised for preventing tag wars, not starting them.

wolfmanfur said:
Except foot_fetish and tickling aren't pornographic. As a matter of fact, most of the images tagged under these are questionable, not explicit. Explicit is the de-facto for pornographic content here.

Really? Because the only definition of "pornographic" you have provided thus far is:

wolfmanfur said:
The explicit rule sould be summed as "For anything intended for adult, not-safe-for-work viewing. If it is not pornographic then it isn't explicit."

But suddenly intent no longer matters when it's not your fetish, hmm?

wat8548 said:Yes, because the presence or absence of an anus in an image is an objective standard that everyone can agree on the answer to.

Clearly this is still a thing that still causes tagging issues since people are forced to label things a logical person would view as safe or questionable as explicit.
To say that the anus is always explicit but breasts aren't is a subjective opinion.
It is far more logical to say that exposed breasts and genitals are inherently questionable, and context makes them explicit.

wat8548 said:The site's rules are optimised for preventing tag wars, not starting them.

That's dumb. Tags should be optimized for accuracy, not for laziness.

simski said:
Clearly this is still a thing that still causes tagging issues since people are forced to label things a logical person would view as safe or questionable as explicit.

Ah yes, homo logicalis, scourge of economics majors everywhere. If there's no disagreement over whether the label applies then there's no tagging issue, is there? I've already explained in multiple ways how people can disagree with you without being "illogical", especially when it comes to the definition of pornography which is one of the most subjective things on the planet.

Tags are applied by the entire community, and that means we need communal standards. If you want a website that defines all of its tags and ratings by your personal standards then go ahead and make your own.

simski said:
To say that the anus is always explicit but breasts aren't is a subjective opinion.
It is far more logical to say that exposed breasts and genitals are inherently questionable, and context makes them explicit.

What context?

Both you and Wolfmanfur keep talking in circles around this supposedly easy definition of "pornography" while carefully avoiding ever providing one.

simski said:
That's dumb. Tags should be optimized for accuracy, not for laziness.

Are you volunteering to tag and rate every single post on e621, then? If not, you must be lazy.

wat8548 said:
Yes, because the presence or absence of an anus in an image is an objective standard that everyone can agree on the answer to. We are not going to switch over to a "well I think it looks like porn"-based standard, no matter how much you post. The site's rules are optimised for preventing tag wars, not starting them.

Holy shit you're a headache,firstly "Yes, because the presence or absence of an anus in an image is an objective standard that everyone can agree on the answer to." I fully agreed with that statement multiple times, and I quote "I said all anuses should be questionable." you then tried to argue that depending how detailed a butthole was it should be rated independently. I am not trying to make this system more complicated, you are. Lastly, no it does not prevent tag wars, admins still have to step in from time to time.

Really? Because the only definition of "pornographic" you have provided thus far is:
But suddenly intent no longer matters when it's not your fetish, hmm?

Go complain about it to an admin, as it currently stands foot_fetish is to be questionable at minimum, not explicit, because it is taboo, not pornographic. If you're gonna then argue that it is 'fap material', so it should be explicit/pornographic then you'd be doing a great disservice to the website. There is a fetish for pretty much everything, from wearing glasses to getting cartoonishly burned on the butt sm64-style and getting squished cartoonishly are all fetishes and I have 2 of the 3 I mentioned, all of these have a minimum rating of safe, go see for yourself, here's one of the tags: flattened. Look, most of the posts ae safe, I know when I'm looking at something pornographic and artistic nudity is not one of them.

I would rather argue this with Watsit 24/7 than doing it with you because at least he understands when I am talking to him, you don't, you don't understand and that's despite making my points very clear. This was already obvious the very first time you replied to me.

wat8548 said:
OK, but this contradicts your other stance that anuses should be sometimes questionable and sometimes explicit.

I even asked you to quote me where I said that a bare anus that is simply visible should sometimes be questionable and sometimes explicit and you could not be bothered to do it. I will make it crystal clear when a drawing with the tag "anus" must be questionable and within which contextes it must be explicit.

The anus being simply visible with nobody doing anything to it should be questionable:
post #3946912 post #2262128 post #3880670 post #2999701 post #3633373
Someone does something to the anus, the context doesn't matter, so it should always be explicit:
post #3954573 post #3954607 post #3886760 post #3850468 or anything on anus sex
Any sexually provocative pieces of art shouldhave its rating increased by 1 notch, for example if an artwork was already questionable because it had an anus, it must be explicit:
post #3954663 post #3954582 post #3847999 post #3689943 post #3770042 post #3948829

This is clear, this is concise and yes this is enforceable by the administration in a manner that is fully objective. Look at the tags on the pictures.

wat8548 said:
Ah yes, homo logicalis, scourge of economics majors everywhere. If there's no disagreement over whether the label applies then there's no tagging issue, is there? I've already explained in multiple ways how people can disagree with you without being "illogical", especially when it comes to the definition of pornography which is one of the most subjective things on the planet.

I've defined pornography already doofus and even if you don't agree with it, e6 assigning explicit ratings would make those posts pornographic anyway by the site's definition, so your argument runs in circles.

Tags are applied by the entire community, and that means we need communal standards. If you want a website that defines all of its tags and ratings by your personal standards then go ahead and make your own.

Communal standards can be changed. You are strangely opposed to change, are you afraid by it, somehow?

What context?

Gave you plenty of contexts already.

Both you and Wolfmanfur keep talking in circles around this supposedly easy definition of "pornography" while carefully avoiding ever providing one.
Are you volunteering to tag and rate every single post on e621, then? If not, you must be lazy.

I gave you one earlier, but you simply won't listen when you're being talked to. Talking to you feels like screaming into a void. Stop acting like nobody didn't explain simple concepts to you because you're acting like a toddler and covering your ears.

wolfmanfur said:
And I said anus + any of these tags = explicit, that is consistent. Think of it like 1+1=2.

No, you said:

The explicit rule sould be summed as "For anything intended for adult, not-safe-for-work viewing. If it is not pornographic then it isn't explicit." the site has plenty of tags to make the distinction between a pornographic artwork and a non-pornographic artwork: seductive, spread_butt, sucking_penis, bedroom_eyes, rimming, sex, cum, ejaculation, masturbation, orgasm, footjob, buttfucking, masochism, pain, public_humiliation, extreme_french_kiss, blushing_profusely, looking_back_at_vewer, etc.

These tags make an image pornographic, and being pornographic makes it Explicit. This is what you said.

And in either case, this isn't how ratings work. It's not additive like that, two questionable things on a post can still result in the post being Questionable. You need something else for it to become Explicit, such as a change in overall focus to something considered Explicit regardless, or the addition of an always-Explicit element.

wolfmanfur said:
I consider questionable to be for "anything that can potentially offend".

So this entire site. Anything can offend if you find the right group of people, so that's not a good metric.

simski said:
Clearly this is still a thing that still causes tagging issues since people are forced to label things a logical person would view as safe or questionable as explicit.

Except there's large disagreement on when such things would be safe, questionable, or explicit. So far, we've only been given the vague suggestion that "it's explicit when it's pornography" (where what constitutes pornography is very hazy), or that when a Questionable thing like an x_anus is combined with another Questionable thing like a blush, they add together to become Explicit (which, aside from the contention of things like blush/looking_back_at_viewer/etc being Questionable, isn't how ratings work).

simski said:
It is far more logical to say that exposed breasts and genitals are inherently questionable, and context makes them explicit.

Context can be vague or uncertain, as demonstrated by this thread. To me, none of these images have a context to make it explicit (aside from the x_anus itself)
post #3302316 post #1806062 post #3770042 post #1426820
They look confused or embarrassed with a blush, or neutral, which can otherwise be considered cute. Images like these can be Safe, if it weren't for a visible anus. But to wolfmanfur, they look expectant/seductive rather then embarrassed/neutral, because a character blushing while looking at someone in anime means they're in love (which is completely untrue; a blush can also signify embarrassment or anger, to say nothing of blushes in different colors like purple or black which can signify being ill or uneasy, but even if it were, signs of love or romance are not inherently unsafe anyway). Context is subjective as people interpret images differently (what's cute and innocent to one person can be pornographic to another; particularly when you involve kinks that can be sexualized), which will increase the amount of disagreements/rating wars if genitals alone aren't automatically Explicit.

wolfmanfur said:
Holy shit you're a headache,firstly "Yes, because the presence or absence of an anus in an image is an objective standard that everyone can agree on the answer to." I fully agreed with that statement multiple times, and I quote "I said all anuses should be questionable." you then tried to argue that depending how detailed a butthole was it should be rated independently. I am not trying to make this system more complicated, you are. Lastly, no it does not prevent tag wars, admins still have to step in from time to time.

I never argued that, I was pointing out how you were trying to make the system more complicated. "Anus in image" is a test with no edge cases. "Image is sexually provocative" is a test made up almost entirely of edge cases. If you think we have a lot of tag wars now (and I don't, the tickets queue gets like one tag war complaint per day and 90% of those are about cubs), that's nothing compared to how many we'd have if we changed the ratings guidelines to satisfy you.

wolfmanfur said:
Go complain about it to an admin, as it currently stands foot_fetish is to be questionable at minimum, not explicit, because it is taboo, not pornographic. If you're gonna then argue that it is 'fap material', so it should be explicit/pornographic then you'd be doing a great disservice to the website.

Again, I never argued that, you did. I even quoted the part where you explicitly argued that, since you like to demand quotes so much.

wolfmanfur said:
There is a fetish for pretty much everything, from wearing glasses to getting cartoonishly burned on the butt sm64-style and getting squished cartoonishly are all fetishes and I have 2 of the 3 I mentioned, all of these have a minimum rating of safe, go see for yourself, here's one of the tags: flattened. Look, most of the posts ae safe, I know when I'm looking at something pornographic and artistic nudity is not one of them.

And here we are again: "I know when I'm looking at something pornographic". Yes, but you're not the only one looking, are you?

For example, you really think these two images should be Questionable?
post #3880670 post #3633373

The one on the right clearly has bedroom_eyes, one of the tags in your own list from earlier that you claim should bump a rating up to Explicit. I would also tag it presenting_hindquarters. Note how neither of those tags are actually present on the post right now, but it doesn't matter because it was rated Explicit anyway.

The other one is forced, which wasn't on your list but probably should be if the likes of pain and masochism count.

wolfmanfur said:
I've defined pornography already doofus and even if you don't agree with it, e6 assigning explicit ratings would make those posts pornographic anyway by the site's definition, so your argument runs in circles.

All you've said is that a post is pornographic if it is explicit and it is explicit if it is pornographic, and when pressed further for a definition of "pornographic" you have offered nothing beyond artistic intent (untaggable) and "because I say so" (even more untaggable). The closest you came to a testable rule was the assertion that "blushing_profusely" should have an influence on a post's rating, a standard which I am definitely not the only person to take issue with.

wolfmanfur said:
Communal standards can be changed. You are strangely opposed to change, are you afraid by it, somehow?

Yes, as it happens, I am afraid of the infinite tag wars that you wish to subject us all to.

wat8548 said:
I never argued that, I was pointing out how you were trying to make the system more complicated. "Anus in image" is a test with no edge cases. "Image is sexually provocative" is a test made up almost entirely of edge cases. If you think we have a lot of tag wars now (and I don't, the tickets queue gets like one tag war complaint per day and 90% of those are about cubs), that's nothing compared to how many we'd have if we changed the ratings guidelines to satisfy you.

There are plenty of tags to contextualize a drawing: blush, looking_at_viewer, wink etc or a combination of these, so it has no edge cases.

Again, I never argued that, you did. I even quoted the part where you explicitly argued that, since you like to demand quotes so much.
And here we are again: "I know when I'm looking at something pornographic". Yes, but you're not the only one looking, are you?

You misinterpreted my comment yeah, that's why I said you don't understand and you won't listen.

For example, you really think these two images should be Questionable?
post #3880670 post #3633373

Of course, it is artistic nudity.

The one on the right clearly has bedroom_eyes, one of the tags in your own list from earlier that you claim should bump a rating up to Explicit. I would also tag it presenting_hindquarters. Note how neither of those tags are actually present on the post right now, but it doesn't matter because it was rated Explicit anyway.

That is just wrong. These are not bedroom_eyes, the eyes need to be half closed in order to be bedroom_eyes, the eevee pictures are bedroom eyes, that's why it wasn't tagged (as if that'd matter since missing tags and mistagging are both a thing here). Also, no, those aren't presenting hind legs, the character is literally hugging a giant nut.

The other one is forced, which wasn't on your list but probably should be if the likes of pain and masochism count.

Forced is context sensitive. A character saying things is not the same as rape which also happens to be 'forced' and which I agree is explicit.

If a kid says "I don't want to go to school", but then the mom says "You need to go to school" then that'd be an example of 'forced' that is safe. You should know, you've been the one asking for context these past few replies.

wat8548 said:
All you've said is that a post is pornographic if it is explicit and it is explicit if it is pornographic, and when pressed further for a definition of "pornographic" you have offered nothing beyond artistic intent (untaggable) and "because I say so" (even more untaggable). The closest you came to a testable rule was the assertion that "blushing_profusely" should have an influence on a post's rating, a standard which I am definitely not the only person to take issue with.

It is pornographic if it sexually explicit, it shows a person or group of persons engaging in sex for the sexual pleasure of whoever is watching these pictures. As for my comments on the provocative stuff being explicit, it is because of imminent_sex or one character wanting to have sex with another. Sex itself is a vague term, as well as explicit. I don't think you can define either of them.

Yes, as it happens, I am afraid of the infinite tag wars that you wish to subject us all to.

It's for paranoid mindset like these that broken systems like this site's ratings will never be fixed.

watsit said:
No, you said:
These tags make an image pornographic, and being pornographic makes it Explicit. This is what you said.

And in either case, this isn't how ratings work. It's not additive like that, two questionable things on a post can still result in the post being Questionable. You need something else for it to become Explicit, such as a change in overall focus to something considered Explicit regardless, or the addition of an always-Explicit element.

I don't disagree per say, but everybody on this site want the weird kinky stuff to be explicit and I can see why this would annoy someone, so I thought up of this system that would give more appropriate ratings while keeping everybody happy.

So this entire site. Anything can offend if you find the right group of people, so that's not a good metric.

This is the most Conservative/Reactionary take I've read from you, people on this site are not snowflakes (at least not most of us lol). But, I will make it a little simpler: anything that is controversial by a large margin of people (somewhere around 70%) and that would probably offend most normies should have a questionable rating. I don't wanna see a hot waifu picture in the train where there are other people and those posts tend to be rated safe because there is usually no tag that solicit the higher rating, hence why I wanted blush to be questionable.

Except there's large disagreement on when such things would be safe, questionable, or explicit. So far, we've only been given the vague suggestion that "it's explicit when it's pornography" (where what constitutes pornography is very hazy), or that when a Questionable thing like an x_anus is combined with another Questionable thing like a blush, they add together to become Explicit (which, aside from the contention of things like blush/looking_back_at_viewer/etc being Questionable, isn't how ratings work).

This would make more sense to have a system like this, but I'm okay without this additive system of ratings. The issue is those provocative pictures where genitals are clearly visible will annoy people and will often result in misrating. Compare these 2 pictures:
post #2999701 post #3948829
They would have both the same questionable rating which I can see would be a problem. The original post's intention was to separate art from kinky art.

Context can be vague or uncertain, as demonstrated by this thread. To me, none of these images have a context to make it explicit (aside from the x_anus itself)
post #3302316 post #1806062 post #3770042 post #1426820
They look confused or embarrassed with a blush, or neutral, which can otherwise be considered cute. Images like these can be Safe, if it weren't for a visible anus. But to wolfmanfur, they look expectant/seductive rather then embarrassed/neutral, because a character blushing while looking at someone in anime means they're in love (which is completely untrue; a blush can also signify embarrassment or anger, to say nothing of blushes in different colors like purple or black which can signify being ill or uneasy, but even if it were, signs of love or romance are not inherently unsafe anyway). Context is subjective as people interpret images differently (what's cute and innocent to one person can be pornographic to another; particularly when you involve kinks that can be sexualized), which will increase the amount of disagreements/rating wars if genitals alone aren't automatically Explicit.

Once again, one of these images has the bedroom eyes, another has a "french girl pose" (Don't know if it is actually a tsg) and the others are characters blushing at the viewer with a focus on the anus. I was unsure about the Shinx, it is the only picture on your list that could be interpreted one way or the other if we don't count the blush.
If that is such an unsolvable problem, we could determine the rating based on a group of tags rather single tags alone and that would kill off the discussion of additive tags.
I don't remember ever seeing a blush in a diffeent color being tagged "blush" on this website. I do remember seeing ill characters with a green face. Although, no blush tag to speak of. I think the message is clear to what kind of blush the site is focused on. Before making arguments like this, you need to take into account how the tags are used in the first place, I would have never recommended this knowing full well it could be used on an extensive amount of posts.
"which will increase the amount of disagreements/rating wars if genitals alone aren't automatically Explicit." All right, so it is decided, all pictures tagged "feet" must be questionable because of foot_fetish.

wolfmanfur said:
There are plenty of tags to contextualize a drawing: blush, looking_at_viewer, wink etc or a combination of these, so it has no edge cases.

What do I have to do to get you to understand that not every user of this site shares every one of your exact opinions on what forms the dividing line between "not porn" and "porn"?

wolfmanfur said:
You misinterpreted my comment yeah, that's why I said you don't understand and you won't listen.

Which comment? The one about intent? The one which you restated further down in this very post?

wolfmanfur said:
It is pornographic if it sexually explicit, it shows a person or group of persons engaging in sex for the sexual pleasure of whoever is watching these pictures.

Does intent matter or not? Try to give only one answer this time, please.

bfg said:
While browsing today, I was surprised to find a series of (I thought) very tame drawings and animations, such as
https://e621.net/posts/3044735
https://e621.net/posts/1714804
https://e621.net/posts/3828774
https://e621.net/posts/3819875
https://e621.net/posts/3805248
that nevertheless were rated Explicit or (for the first one, Questionable) - and, per how the current guidelines read, correctly so.

However, I would suggest that an exception is in order. When a drawing, animation, etc. depicts a feral animal that has zero explicit or implicit sexual content - no sexual interaction or content, no arousal, no focus on the genital/anal areas, no provocative poses, or anything of the like - and the artist was just trying to draw the animal realistically (or, in the case of the last one, match the character's depiction in a children's cartoon!) - I don't think the Explicit rating ought to apply.

I thus suggest something like the following be be added to the "Safe (General)" rating guideline:
"realistic but incidental/nonfocal depictions of a feral animal's anatomy, if that animal is not aroused or in a sexual/explicit situation"

I agree that these aren't explicit but the problem is that the guidelines would then need to be changed so that non sexual displays of genitals would have to be tagged differently which opens a door for lots of argument and confusion. We would need to define exactly where the line is between sexual and non sexual displays and there are lots of grey areas when it comes to this sort of thing. This thread is proof that there is a lot of disagreement on what is and isn't sexual. We might even all be able to come to a consensus on whether or not the other posts in this thread are sexual or non sexual but there are too many posts added to this site for us to mull over and debate over the sexual nature of every post. It's a huge can of worms and it's just easier if any depiction of genitals is considered explicit.

just_lurking said:
I agree that these aren't explicit but the problem is that the guidelines would then need to be changed so that non sexual displays of genitals would have to be tagged differently which opens a door for lots of argument and confusion. We would need to define exactly where the line is between sexual and non sexual displays and there are lots of grey areas when it comes to this sort of thing. This thread is proof that there is a lot of disagreement on what is and isn't sexual. We might even all be able to come to a consensus on whether or not the other posts in this thread are sexual or non sexual but there are too many posts added to this site for us to mull over and debate over the sexual nature of every post. It's a huge can of worms and it's just easier if any depiction of genitals is considered explicit.

I'd personally venture to say stuff previously mentioned like exposed breasts being presented sexually is significantly more deserving of being rated explicit, but it also conflicts with stuff like non-sexual breasts. As far as I can tell, the current solution of determining certain tags as always being explicit is the most clear cut way to keep arguments from occurring. I think the question that arises should be something like whether sheaths or balls should necessitate being explicit. If the answer is yes, I suppose those posts are forced to remain in the explicit category as outliers.

wat8548 said:
Ah yes, homo logicalis, scourge of economics majors everywhere. If there's no disagreement over whether the label applies then there's no tagging issue, is there? I've already explained in multiple ways how people can disagree with you without being "illogical", especially when it comes to the definition of pornography which is one of the most subjective things on the planet.

Tags are applied by the entire community, and that means we need communal standards. If you want a website that defines all of its tags and ratings by your personal standards then go ahead and make your own.

What context?

Both you and Wolfmanfur keep talking in circles around this supposedly easy definition of "pornography" while carefully avoiding ever providing one.
Are you volunteering to tag and rate every single post on e621, then? If not, you must be lazy.

Okay here's an easy definition then

Images with visible breasts and genitals are not safe, but can be questionable.
I see absolutely no reason how this rule change would cause any at all more issues than the current rule that "visible breasts are not safe, but can be questionable".

I do not agree that vaginas, penises and anuses are always explicit. I WOULD agree with this rule if we had no exceptions at all for "tasteful nudity". However we do have exceptions for breasts as "tasteful nudity", and I think as long as that exception exists the same should apply for genitals.

There is 0 reason this video should be rated Explicit

post #3811911

simski said:

There is 0 reason this video should be rated Explicit

post #3811911

Apart for the dismemberment & severed_arm that appears on the 10 second mark, the real reason is because it is tagged with x_anus (which implies anus).

thegreatwolfgang said:
Apart for the dismemberment & severed_arm that appears on the 10 second mark,

Moot because dismemberment and blood are not always Nsfw.
post #2262429 post #2262647

thegreatwolfgang said:
the real reason is because it is tagged with x_anus (which implies anus).

And like it has been argued for the past few months, it shouldn't be explicit because it is stupid and illogical. In fact, the rating system would be better if it properly reflected safe, taboo, and pornographic content like it should've and while staying consistent.
Simski pointed out the irony of visible breasts being sometimes questionable and sometimes explicit, but somehow the logic can't apply to anus.

wolfmanfur said:
Moot because dismemberment and blood are not always Nsfw.

Dismemberment is listed as being Explicit under the Ratings page.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Dismemberment is listed as being Explicit under the Ratings page.

I think there should be a distinction between dismemberment, and cartoonish dismemberment, but eh, I guess it can be ambiguous depending on the artwork.

simski said:
I do not agree that vaginas, penises and anuses are always explicit. I WOULD agree with this rule if we had no exceptions at all for "tasteful nudity". However we do have exceptions for breasts as "tasteful nudity", and I think as long as that exception exists the same should apply for genitals.

As I said: talking in circles. I literally already explained why nipples are rated as they are. Hint: "tasteful nudity" has nothing to do with it.

simski said:
Okay here's an easy definition then

Images with visible breasts and genitals are not safe, but can be questionable.
I see absolutely no reason how this rule change would cause any at all more issues than the current rule that "visible breasts are not safe, but can be questionable".

I do not agree that vaginas, penises and anuses are always explicit. I WOULD agree with this rule if we had no exceptions at all for "tasteful nudity". However we do have exceptions for breasts as "tasteful nudity", and I think as long as that exception exists the same should apply for genitals.

and where is the line that seperates tasteful nudity and distasteful nudity?

You and Wolfmanfur have yet to give an actual definition of pornographic. Both of you have listed qualities that pornographic images share but you have yet to define what makes something pornographic and what makes something pornographic. Listing qualities they might share or saying an image is pornographic is not enough.

just_lurking said:
and where is the line that seperates tasteful nudity and distasteful nudity?

You and Wolfmanfur have yet to give an actual definition of pornographic. Both of you have listed qualities that pornographic images share but you have yet to define what makes something pornographic and what makes something pornographic. Listing qualities they might share or saying an image is pornographic is not enough.

wolfmanfur said:
It is pornographic if it sexually explicit, it shows a person or group of persons engaging in sex for the sexual pleasure of whoever is watching these pictures. As for my comments on the provocative stuff being explicit, it is because of imminent_sex or one character wanting to have sex with another. Sex itself is a vague term, as well as explicit. I don't think you can define either of them.

And whether you agree with it or not, e621 has its own definition for pornographic material given this website has an explicit rating.

wolfmanfur said:
It is pornographic if it sexually explicit, it shows a person or group of persons engaging in sex for the sexual pleasure of whoever is watching these pictures. As for my comments on the provocative stuff being explicit, it is because of imminent_sex or one character wanting to have sex with another. Sex itself is a vague term, as well as explicit. I don't think you can define either of them.

must have missed this but is the fact that you vague terms in your definition not a big problem? I don't think e621's current definition is perfect but it definitely lacks vagueness.

just_lurking said:
must have missed this but is the fact that you vague terms in your definition not a big problem? I don't think e621's current definition is perfect but it definitely lacks vagueness.

The concept of explicit is vague and interpretive on e6. The tags themselves are what makes them part of a certain rating based on arbitrary rules. This is why we even have this debate because it was arbitrarily decided that anus would be explicit.

wolfmanfur said:
This is why we even have this debate because it was arbitrarily decided that anus would be explicit.

Better than arbitrarily deciding this anus is explicit but not that anus. If you see an anus, it's explicit, rather than if you see an anus, it's explicit if it's pornographic (and it's pornographic if it's explicit).

watsit said:
Better than arbitrarily deciding this anus is explicit but not that anus. If you see an anus, it's explicit, rather than if you see an anus, it's explicit if it's pornographic (and it's pornographic if it's explicit).

Yet, this breast is explicit but not that breast. I'm telling you, you and Wat are overthinking this. There is a tag that is detailed_anus, we could make x_anus safe or questionable and detailed_anus explicit and boom problem solved.

However, I still want for all suggestive art to be questionable, anus or not.

wolfmanfur said:
Yet, this breast is explicit but not that breast.

The breast itself is never explicit. It's something else going on (like a titfuck or a pussy being visible) that would make a post explicit. As the wiki says:

Fully or partially exposed breasts (with the nipple/areola visible), or covered, with clearly defined nipple outline, should be tagged as Questionable, unless other elements within the scene prompt an Explicit rating

Fully or partially exposed breasts themselves should be tagged Questionable, unless other elements within the scene require an Explicit rating (where it's those other elements, not the breasts, causing the Explicit rating).

wolfmanfur said:
However, I still want for all suggestive art to be questionable, anus or not.

What's suggestive to one person may not be to another. We've already seen disagreement on certain images in this thread that you think is suggestive/seductive that I instead see as confusion or embarrassment.

watsit said:
The breast itself is never explicit. It's something else going on (like a titfuck or a pussy being visible) that would make a post explicit. As the wiki says:
Fully or partially exposed breasts themselves should be tagged Questionable, unless other elements within the scene require an Explicit rating (where it's those other elements, not the breasts, causing the Explicit rating).

Then, why can't the logic apply to anus too?

Right now, I could use several of your and Wat's arguments to argue in favor of making all breasts explicit.
"The breast itself is never explicit."
"It's something else going on (like a titfuck or a pussy being visible) that would make a post explicit."
Normally that would be fair, but apparently tags like spread_legs and sex don't exist when it comes to anus.

So what, you're going to take a protractor to the character's legs to determine the angle between "spread" and "questionable"?

"Fully or partially exposed breasts themselves should be tagged Questionable, unless other elements within the scene require an Explicit rating (where it's those other elements, not the breasts, causing the Explicit rating)."

Yes, because the presence or absence of an anus in an image is an objective standard that everyone can agree on the answer to. We are not going to switch over to a "well I think it looks like porn"-based standard, no matter how much you post. The site's rules are optimised for preventing tag wars, not starting them.

y'all could disagree, but if it weren't for no-exceptions scoring we can argue all we want about weather it's sus or not and only have an infinite tag war to show for it

With a simple x-like anus, the likes of which people think should be Safe, and a pose that could also be considered Safe on its own. But the two details together makes the image appear sexual.

We're hardly making the issue more complicated. This site defines visible genitals as inherently Explicit, an anus is considered genitals, and an x_anus is an anus. That's it, not very complicated at all. In trying to add exceptions to have the rating lessened depending on the pose, whether it's "seductive" or "pornographic", you're making the line blurrier and more difficult to contend with.

That would be hilariously inconsistent. Pornography is famously impossible to define, one of the better-known legal opinions on the matter being "I know it when I see it".

You two can't stay consistent in your opinions. Your arguments aren't tangible either. I would expect you two would at least argue that all breasts must always have the explicit rating, but no as long as we aren't talking about anuses, context and intent suddenly matter and some artworks that depict breasts can be questionable, or explicit if they are pornographic in nature.
Talk about a double-standard.

watsit said:
What's suggestive to one person may not be to another. We've already seen disagreement on certain images in this thread that you think is suggestive/seductive that I instead see as confusion or embarrassment.

#1. Suggestive and seductive are not always synonymous. I was speaking strictly of the image being suggestive as opposed to the character in the image being seductive.
#2. Confusion and embarassment can still be seductive, a character being naked for the first time will be embarassed by it, but they are naked because they want to have sex with someone.
If you want an example of confusion/embarassment without the seductive aspect to it then take a gander at this image:
post #3880670
You should immediately notice 2 things: Firstly, no blush; Secondly, the pose and expression are much less seductive, the character looks panicked.

wolfmanfur said:
You two can't stay consistent in your opinions. Your arguments aren't tangible either. I would expect you two would at least argue that all breasts must always have the explicit rating, but no as long as we aren't talking about anuses, context and intent suddenly matter and some artworks that depict breasts can be questionable, or explicit if they are pornographic in nature.
Talk about a double-standard.

You only think it's a double standard because you completely misunderstood what Watsit said about breasts. At no point has anybody in this thread argued that breasts are or should be contextually explicit. The wording of the breasts wiki page isn't the greatest, but "other elements within the scene" should be understood as "elements which are themselves automatically explicit", like a penis or pussy (or, yes, an anus). There's no contradiction at all.

wat8548 said:
You only think it's a double standard because you completely misunderstood what Watsit said about breasts. At no point has anybody in this thread argued that breasts are or should be contextually explicit. The wording of the breasts wiki page isn't the greatest, but "other elements within the scene" should be understood as "elements which are themselves automatically explicit", like a penis or pussy (or, yes, an anus). There's no contradiction at all.

And spread_legs and sex aren't elements within the scene? Since when?

The contradiction is that somehow genitals are always explicit whereas breasts can be questionable, despite being in the same bag as those genitals. If you ask an equal amount of people whether penises, vaginas, anuses and breasts should be censored, an almost equal amount of people will say yes for each and I do say almost equal because male breasts aren't set to the same standard as female breasts in society.

And nevertheless, I don't want breasts to be explicit, I want anus and the genitals to assume a questionable rating by default which is enforceable.

wolfmanfur said:
And spread_legs and sex aren't elements within the scene? Since when?

Spread legs aren't explicit. It's perfectly fine for them to be Safe, even. You're trying to add this extra layer by saying 'an anus Questionable, and if it's with one of these other non-Explicit tags, that makes it Explicit', but that's not how ratings work. Two Questionable things, or a Questionable thing with a Safe thing, doesn't inherently make a post Explicit, so you're adding ambiguity around when a post featuring genitals or genital orifices are Explicit.

wolfmanfur said:
The contradiction is that somehow genitals are always explicit whereas breasts can be questionable, despite being in the same bag as those genitals.

There is no contradiction, it's just defined in a way you don't like. Breasts are Questionable if they're partially or fully exposed, genitals and genital orifices are Explicit. Breasts aren't genitals or genital orifices, and there are parts of the civilized world that don't consider breasts to be naughty (there are places where it's fine for a female to walk around topless in public). In contrast, the penis, vagina, and anus is much more universally accepted as being necessary to keep covered in public.

watsit said:
Spread legs aren't explicit. It's perfectly fine for them to be Safe, even. You're trying to add this extra layer by saying 'an anus Questionable, and if it's with one of these other non-Explicit tags, that makes it Explicit', but that's not how ratings work. Two Questionable things, or a Questionable thing with a Safe thing, doesn't inherently make a post Explicit, so you're adding ambiguity around when a post featuring genitals or genital orifices are Explicit.

That's why a group of tags should define the rating rather than any single tag. I can guarantee you right now that any picture posted here that has these 4 tags togeher: blush, spread_legs, looking_at_viewer, nude; are all not-safe-for-work and I would dare you to view them in public. Some of the are coincidentally rated safe.

And no, you two said that breasts can sometimes be explicit and sometimes questionable, but you won't ever give a thought that the same can or should apply to anus. For example, there is sex which I mentioned above that could dictate the rating.

watsit said:
There is no contradiction, it's just defined in a way you don't like. Breasts are Questionable if they're partially or fully exposed, genitals and genital orifices are Explicit. Breasts aren't genitals or genital orifices, and there are parts of the civilized world that don't consider breasts to be naughty (there are places where it's fine for a female to walk around topless in public). In contrast, the penis, vagina, and anus is much more universally accepted as being necessary to keep covered in public.

lol at the "genital orifices", and the mouth is one of them. So, based on your logic, all mouths must be explicit. Anuses aren't normally meant to be fucked, but I guess you know that already.

Like where? South Africa? Unless it's a nude beach, women aren't allowed topless in most public spaces in every country in Europe and North America and any public space they're allowed topless, men are allowed to not wear any pants.