wolfmanfur said:
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.

Scandinavia (Sweden, at least) generally doesn't have such a problem with topless women in public, for starters.

clawstripe said:
Scandinavia (Sweden, at least) generally doesn't have such a problem with topless women in public, for starters.

There is a caveat.

In Sweden, toplessness is not illegal. It is a little unclear, because the law usually used against nudity is about "annoying behaviour" [42] - it does not say anything about how undressed one can be, so it's a matter of legal tradition, although there is a law against gender discrimination. [43]

In short: If you annoy somebody by being topless, you can still get arrested.
The Swedish law also seems to treat butts, penises and vaginas similarly which is unlike Wat and Watsit advanced.

wolfmanfur said:
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.

They are rated safe, exactly. So why would adding a Questionable thing, like an anus in your view, make it Explicit instead of Questionable? Do we need to keep tabs on which tags with which genitals combine to become Explicit when they aren't individually? And you say we're making this complicated.

wolfmanfur said:
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.

An image with breasts can be Explicit, but the breasts themselves don't make a post Explicit if it wasn't already, or if the breasts aren't doing something that is Explicit (like giving a titjob). Merely adding Questionable-rated breasts to an image that is otherwise Safe or Questionable leaves the image as Questionable. This isn't like what you're proposing, where a Questionable-rated anus being added to non-Explicit things like spread_legs, blushing, or looking_at_viewer results in the image becoming Explicit.

wolfmanfur said:
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.

Going by the primary uses on this site, anuses are typically presented as being an orifice to be penetrated by genitals, while a mouth isn't. Yes, in the real world the primary use of the anus is different, but this is a site dedicated to furry art with a large helping of porn, so the rules will reflect that.

wolfmanfur said:
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.

Canada:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5281720/toplessness-public-nudity-legal/
[...]
In 1996, an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling paved the way for women to bare their chests in public.

Gwen Jacob walked down a Guelph, Ont., street on a sweltering day in 1991 without wearing a shirt. She was charged and convicted of committing an indecent act, which was ultimately overturned.

In 2000, the B.C. Supreme Court sided with Linda Meyer, who challenged a bylaw against toplessness at a public pool in Maple Ridge.

A recent incident has brought the issue back into focus. A Vancouver couple, Elsi Dawson and Clementine Smithereens, took off their shirts in defiance after being confronted by fellow beachgoers last weekend.

Jamie Wlesanko accused the couple of lewd behaviour.

[...]

Eventually, the RCMP were called. Wlesanko said she was told they would not attend because being topless in Kelowna is not a crime.

Germany:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2022/05/02/women-allowed-topless-in-pools-in-germany-for-gender-equality/?sh=6fb174781590
The city of Göttingen in Lower Saxony, central Germany, will be the first in the country to allow the practice of female topless swimming in its indoor and outdoor pools, thanks to a measure aimed at increasing gender equality.

The initiative permitting swimmers to bathe 'oben-ohne' (topless) took effect on May 1 as a test limited to weekends and set to expire at the end of August.

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2023/mar/25/berlin-welcomes-topless-female-swimmers-in-victory-for-activists
When a lifeguard asked police to remove Lotte Mies for bathing topless at her local indoor swimming pool in Berlin it was a move that would inadvertently trigger a rule change allowing all women, including visiting female tourists, the freedom to go topless while swimming in the city.

[...]

Berlin is not the only German city to allow topless swimming. In May 2022, Göttingen in Lower Saxony, central Germany, became the first German city to allow female topless swimming in its indoor and outdoor pools, after a swimmer who identified as male was turned away from a public pool for wanting to swim with their chest bare. Following a brief test phase the regulation is now being continued permanently.

Note these are public pools and beaches, with the rules and regulations applying city-wide, not specific private "nude beaches".

This wikipedia article says (of course, being wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt, though it does have references; the references aren't in English so I can't verify it, but regardless) it's also legal in Denmark, Greece, and Iceland, along with public beaches and pools in Italy.

watsit said:
They are rated safe, exactly. So why would adding a Questionable thing, like an anus in your view, make it Explicit instead of Questionable? Do we need to keep tabs on which tags with which genitals combine to become Explicit when they aren't individually? And you say we're making this complicated.

post #3910471
And that's safe to you?

An image with breasts can be Explicit, but the breasts themselves don't make a post Explicit if it wasn't already, or if the breasts aren't doing something that is Explicit (like giving a titjob). Merely adding Questionable-rated breasts to an image that is otherwise Safe or Questionable leaves the image as Questionable. This isn't like what you're proposing, where a Questionable-rated anus being added to non-Explicit things like spread_legs, blushing, or looking_at_viewer results in the image becoming Explicit.

And yet, you still won't acknowledge that the same principle can be applied to anus with tags like sex and detailed_anus. And that is a separate issue, but several tags that have a default rating of safe should be questionable.

Going by the primary uses on this site, anuses are typically presented as being an orifice to be penetrated by genitals, while a mouth isn't. Yes, in the real world the primary use of the anus is different, but this is a site dedicated to furry art with a large helping of porn, so the rules will reflect that.

Again, you're making exceptions which is exactly what you were criticizing earlier.

Canada:
Germany:
Note these are public pools and beaches, with the rules and regulations applying city-wide, not specific private "nude beaches".

This wikipedia article says (of course, being wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt, though it does have references; the references aren't in English so I can't verify it, but it says) it's also legal in Denmark, Greece, and Iceland, along with public beaches and pools in Italy.

"In 1996, an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling paved the way for women to bare their chests in public."
That hasn't happened yet.

"Gwen Jacob walked down a Guelph, Ont., street on a sweltering day in 1991 without wearing a shirt. She was charged and convicted of committing an indecent act, which was ultimately overturned."
So, murder s legal now since there were murder cases that were overturned worldwide. I can't believe you think this a good quote to use for your argument.

"A recent incident has brought the issue back into focus. A Vancouver couple, Elsi Dawson and Clementine Smithereens, took off their shirts in defiance after being confronted by fellow beachgoers last weekend.

Jamie Wlesanko accused the couple of lewd behaviour."

Ok, and?

The one unique good quote in there that supports your argument is this one: "Eventually, the RCMP were called. Wlesanko said she was told they would not attend because being topless in Kelowna is not a crime."

And still, it s restricted to one single location.

"The city of Göttingen in Lower Saxony, central Germany, will be the first in the country to allow the practice of female topless swimming in its indoor and outdoor pools, thanks to a measure aimed at increasing gender equality.

The initiative permitting swimmers to bathe 'oben-ohne' (topless) took effect on May 1 as a test limited to weekends and set to expire at the end of August."

And you forget there arem any other places where men can be topless, but women can't. Some gyms allow men to be topless, but not women.

This happened recently too, so it is not out of the question the world is more open to nudism than years prior.

"When a lifeguard asked police to remove Lotte Mies for bathing topless at her local indoor swimming pool in Berlin it was a move that would inadvertently trigger a rule change allowing all women, including visiting female tourists, the freedom to go topless while swimming in the city.

[...]

Berlin is not the only German city to allow topless swimming. In May 2022, Göttingen in Lower Saxony, central Germany, became the first German city to allow female topless swimming in its indoor and outdoor pools, after a swimmer who identified as male was turned away from a public pool for wanting to swim with their chest bare. Following a brief test phase the regulation is now being continued permanently."

Exacly as above, this implies this only affects one specific location rather than Germany as a whole.

"This wikipedia article says (of course, being wikipedia, take it with a grain of salt, though it does have references; the references aren't in English so I can't verify it, but it says) it's also legal in Denmark, Greece, and Iceland, along with public beaches and pools in Italy."
This Quora answers says (of course, being Quora, take it with a grain of salt) it's also legal to be naked in beaches and pools in several countries, not just topless.

Do you understand now what I was saying earlier? There is very little difference how breasts and penises are treated. Countries that allow somebody to be topless at the pool or beach usually allow to be completely naked too. None of the examples you have posted stated that it was legal for women to be topless everywhere, leave alone places where men are usually allowed to be topless.

wolfmanfur said:
post #3910471
And that's safe to you?

Yes, although the example I was going to go with from your conveniently easily-tested assertion was this one:

post #736794

wolfmanfur said:
And yet, you still won't acknowledge that the same principle can be applied to anus with tags like sex and detailed_anus.

Do you really need to have the difference between spread_legs and titfuck explained to you very slowly and clearly?

wolfmanfur said:
post #3910471
And that's safe to you?

I wouldn't go out of my way to change it.

wolfmanfur said:
And yet, you still won't acknowledge that the same principle can be applied to anus with tags like sex and detailed_anus.

That's not all you're suggesting, though. The "principle" is that adding partially or fully exposed breasts to a Safe or Questionable image makes the image Questionable, and that if an image with breasts is Explicit, it's because of another element in the image is explicit. Applying those same principles to the anus and genitals would mean images like
post #3964321
wouldn't be Explicit, because the anus and genitals would be Questionable and there's nothing otherwise Explicit visible or being done. You're instead suggesting we change how ratings work by making it so some Questionable and Safe things together can become Explicit on their own.

wolfmanfur said:
Again, you're making exceptions which is exactly what you were criticizing earlier.

What exceptions am I making? Different elements are rated differently, which is to be expected. The exceptions I'm criticizing is when the same thing is rated differently because of other things not related to it (e.g. an anus being Questionable, but if there's also a facial blush (Safe) which is unrelated to anuses, an anus suddenly becomes Explicit).

wolfmanfur said:
"In 1996, an Ontario Court of Appeal ruling paved the way for women to bare their chests in public."
That hasn't happened yet.

The next two paragraphs...

"She was charged and convicted of committing an indecent act, which was ultimately overturned." The Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned the lower court ruling that her being topless walking down a city street and then sitting on a front porch was an indecent act, meaning it was not illegal for her to be so.

"In 2000, the B.C. Supreme Court sided with Linda Meyer, who challenged a bylaw against toplessness at a public pool in Maple Ridge." The Supreme Court of British Columbia struck down a city's bylaw against toplessness at a public pool and recreation area, meaning not only was it not illegal, but the city couldn't legislate or set a rule against it as they did either.

In both these cases, they referred to the federal criminal code for nudity, citing that to be indecent is "measured on an objective, national, community standard of tolerance". In the first case they held:

The accused's conduct [of walking through downtown Guelph and sitting on a front porch with her breasts exposed on a particularly hot and humid day] did not exceed the community standard of tolerance when all of the relevant considerations were taken into account. Her conduct did not constitute an indecent act.

And the second case (which cited the first), held:

The evidence suggests the Section 3A amendment to the Park By-Law was more a reaction to a frustration that the criminal law was not supporting the moral standards in regard to females who chose to bare their breasts in public that some Maple Ridge citizens desired.

Yes, that has happened already.

wolfmanfur said:
"Gwen Jacob walked down a Guelph, Ont., street on a sweltering day in 1991 without wearing a shirt. She was charged and convicted of committing an indecent act, which was ultimately overturned."
So, murder s legal now since there were murder cases that were overturned worldwide. I can't believe you think this a good quote to use for your argument.

Murder can't be legal by definition. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another. Some forms of killing can be legal, and a murder conviction can be overturned if the circumstances are found to have made it not unlawful (e.g. it was found to be self-defense, or that they weren't at fault for the injury that led the other's death).

But what does that have to do with whether or not it's considered indecent for a female to be topless in public?

wolfmanfur said:
"A recent incident has brought the issue back into focus. A Vancouver couple, Elsi Dawson and Clementine Smithereens, took off their shirts in defiance after being confronted by fellow beachgoers last weekend.

Jamie Wlesanko accused the couple of lewd behaviour."

Ok, and?

The one unique good quote in there that supports your argument is this one: "Eventually, the RCMP were called. Wlesanko said she was told they would not attend because being topless in Kelowna is not a crime."

You answered your own question. Another instance of topless females in public (who were also kissing each other) being accused of indecency, with the police saying them being topless in public wasn't a crime.

wolfmanfur said:
And still, it s restricted to one single location.

This is national standard. Both the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Appeal for Ontario said, for nudity to be indecent/illegal depends on the national community standard of tolerance, and that a topless female with their breasts bared in public doesn't rise to the level of indecency. Even if these rulings only apply to their respective provinces, these are very large areas, each the size of multiple US states. So it's hardly "one single location".

wolfmanfur said:
Exacly as above, this implies this only affects one specific location rather than Germany as a whole.

Two different cities, Göttingen and Berlin, but I never said Germany as a whole. I was countering your assertion that it was "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." I provided sources that specifically mention significant parts of, if not all of, Canada, and all public pools and beaches in some cities in Germany. These aren't nude beaches or other areas that already allowed full male nudity, otherwise there wouldn't have been a fight for equality to allow females to just be topless (not nude). Your article confirms this, saying "it’s not permitted to strip everywhere. Walking around naked in public areas where most other people are dressed counts as a minor breach of the law." Females wouldn't have had to fight to just be topless in these places if they needed to be fully nude already anyway.

watsit said:
I wouldn't go out of my way to change it.

That's not all you're suggesting, though. The "principle" is that adding partially or fully exposed breasts to a Safe or Questionable image makes the image Questionable, and that if an image with breasts is Explicit, it's because of another element in the image is explicit. Applying those same principles to the anus and genitals would mean images like
post #3964321
wouldn't be Explicit, because the anus and genitals would be Questionable and there's nothing otherwise Explicit visible or being done.

This post you've put up above would be explicit because of 2 things that I have repeated again and again: the blush and the fact the legs are spread apart, although not to the same extreme extent that I have posted. To top it all off, a disambodied hand is holding the dragon's leg, so while I don't think it's a tag, it amounts to toucherism.

You're instead suggesting we change how ratings work by making it so some Questionable and Safe things together can become Explicit on their own.

None of the tags I have mentioned the entire time should be safe, all of them should be questionable at minimum, specifically blush given it's the greater offender here.
This image is safe, correctly so. Don't you think this should be questionable instead? It obviously can't because there is no genitals, featureless breasts are safe and all the tags I want questionable are safe instead.
post #3910471
I have made my point crystal clear by now that some tags are viewed way too lightly on this website.

Further, tags can contextualize an image, nude is safe by default, but it can suddenly become questionable if it is not cartoony enough.

Nudity is generally rated Questionable or higher, but non-sexualized cartoon (ie: characters whose standard appearance is nude, such as Bugs Bunny and others) or barbie doll nudity (ie: nude by the standards of the character(s) but having "nothing to see") can be rated Safe.

So even if I was to agree with you that all tags should have an imutable rating attached to them, this is in fact not what is happening here, and any combination of tags or visual context of the drawing can change the rating from safe to questionable or from questionable to safe.

What exceptions am I making? Different elements are rated differently, which is to be expected. The exceptions I'm criticizing is when the same thing is rated differently because of other things not related to it (e.g. an anus being Questionable, but if there's also a facial blush (Safe) which is unrelated to anuses, an anus suddenly becomes Explicit).

a breast can sometimes be questionable and sometimes explicit due to visual cues from the picture, for example if the focus character in the picture is being seductive, that is enough to cause the rating to change from questionable to explicit. There are plenty of examples, and some that are explicit, but have no other tag that would warrant the rating, not even a pussy or penis.
post #3954965 post #3954890 post #3951228
Here's several examples, feel free to change the rating if you want to, but e6 is not as organized as you are parading it to be, which is perfectly fine by me if it allows to make nuanced or abstract decisions on issues that would otherwise be impossible to solve with overreliance on rule-ased reasoning.

The next two paragraphs...

"She was charged and convicted of committing an indecent act, which was ultimately overturned." The Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned the lower court ruling that her being topless walking down a city street and then sitting on a front porch was an indecent act, meaning it was not illegal for her to be so.

"In 2000, the B.C. Supreme Court sided with Linda Meyer, who challenged a bylaw against toplessness at a public pool in Maple Ridge." The Supreme Court of British Columbia struck down a city's bylaw against toplessness at a public pool and recreation area, meaning not only was it not illegal, but the city couldn't legislate or set a rule against it as they did either.

In both these cases, they referred to the federal criminal code for nudity, citing that to be indecent is "measured on an objective, national, community standard of tolerance". In the first case they held:
And the second case (which cited the first), held:
Yes, that has happened already.

Murder can't be legal by definition. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person by another. Some forms of killing can be legal, and a murder conviction can be overturned if the circumstances are found to have made it not unlawful (e.g. it was found to be self-defense, or that they weren't at fault for the injury that led the other's death).

But what does that have to do with whether or not it's considered indecent for a female to be topless in public?

You answered your own question. Another instance of topless females in public (who were also kissing each other) being accused of indecency, with the police saying them being topless in public wasn't a crime.

This is national standard. Both the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Court of Appeal for Ontario said, for nudity to be indecent/illegal depends on the national community standard of tolerance, and that a topless female with their breasts bared in public doesn't rise to the level of indecency. Even if these rulings only apply to their respective provinces, these are very large areas, each the size of multiple US states. So it's hardly "one single location".

Except nothing has changed. According to this article (since I am not canadian and I doubt you are either), this is a misconception on your part. The few women that managed to overturn a ruling probably did so by proving that they were either not in a public space or they did not intentionally act indecently.
In addition to that, the article states : "But Canada’s nudity law is “basically never” enforced, in his experience. If someone is charged, it would likely be in conjunction with other offences, he said."

So, it is still not legal to be topless in Canada unless you are far away from parks and other public places, can prove in court you weren't acting indecently or just dumb luck since the law is not enforced according to this article.
Topless women don't get a special treatment over penises, you're wrong.

Even the official justice laws website for Canada makes no mention of breasts because breasts are still considered indecent in Canada much like the anus, penis and vulva.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-174.html

Two different cities, Göttingen and Berlin, but I never said Germany as a whole. I was countering your assertion that it was "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." I provided sources that specifically mention significant parts of, if not all of, Canada, and all public pools and beaches in some cities in Germany. These aren't nude beaches or other areas that already allowed full male nudity, otherwise there wouldn't have been a fight for equality to allow females to just be topless (not nude). Your article confirms this, saying "it’s not permitted to strip everywhere. Walking around naked in public areas where most other people are dressed counts as a minor breach of the law." Females wouldn't have had to fight to just be topless in these places if they needed to be fully nude already anyway.

Your argument this whole time starting from:

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.

in response to:

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.

But every single example you put forth does no indicate or conclude that breasts have preferential treatment over any other dirty part in society You are completely wrong on that front and it is funny to me that you keep proving my point right by obsessing over "Like where? South Africa? ".

For once I am trying to help you, what country in the civilized world gives preferential treatment to breasts over other dirty parts, no anecdotal evidence, no special areas that allow nudity in general and so does allow women to be topless, give me a real argument or a written law that considers the penis, vagina or anus to be dirty parts, but makes an exemption for the female breasts. I am certain you can't, it's only in third world countries where having breasts in public is decent, but penis is bad because "homosexuality" or something to that extent.

wat8548 said:
Yes, although the example I was going to go with from your conveniently easily-tested assertion was this one:
post #736794

You must have had a great time digging up this 7 years old antique piece of art just to try to own my argument. It is part of the absolute minority of posts that I mentioned earlier that are somehow safe despite all odds and quite frankly if the staff made the rule that this group of tags or any of these tags were always questionable that wouldn't mind me. After all, this completely innocuous comic is explicit when it should not have been, so it is a limitation worth taking to make a more accurate rating system in the long run.
This issue is similar to the Trolley Problem.

Do you really need to have the difference between spread_legs and titfuck explained to you very slowly and clearly?

Do you need to be told slowly what "context" means?

wolfmanfur said:
This post you've put up above would be explicit because of 2 things that I have repeated again and again: the blush and the fact the legs are spread apart, although not to the same extreme extent that I have posted. To top it all off, a disambodied hand is holding the dragon's leg, so while I don't think it's a tag, it amounts to toucherism.

So you're not talking about "the same principle as breasts" as you tried to make it out to be.

wolfmanfur said:
None of the tags I have mentioned the entire time should be safe, all of them should be questionable at minimum, specifically blush given it's the greater offender here.

Well, here you're trying to make even greater changes to tags and tag ratings beyond simply making genitals and anuses Questionable.

wolfmanfur said:
This image is safe, correctly so. Don't you think this should be questionable instead?

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. There's nothing particularly naughty going on, so I can see why it wouldn't be Questionable.

wolfmanfur said:
Further, tags can contextualize an image, nude is safe by default, but it can suddenly become questionable if it is not cartoony enough.

Nudity is generally rated Questionable or higher, but non-sexualized cartoon (ie: characters whose standard appearance is nude, such as Bugs Bunny and others) or barbie doll nudity (ie: nude by the standards of the character(s) but having "nothing to see") can be rated Safe.

That last part, having "nothing to see". If there's nothing to see, there's nothing there to make it Questionable. If there's a bulge or uncovered breasts, those would make an image questionable as there is something to see. I'd agree the wiki is poorly stated, but that still follows the same pattern: nude by itself doesn't necessitate being Questionable, but a nude post can be Questionable when it has Questionable elements (uncovered breasts, etc).

wolfmanfur said:
a breast can sometimes be questionable and sometimes explicit due to visual cues from the picture, for example if the focus character in the picture is being seductive, that is enough to cause the rating to change from questionable to explicit. There are plenty of examples, and some that are explicit, but have no other tag that would warrant the rating, not even a pussy or penis.
post #3954965 post #3954890 post #3951228
Here's several examples, feel free to change the rating if you want to, but e6 is not as organized as you are parading it to be, which is perfectly fine by me if it allows to make nuanced or abstract decisions on issues that would otherwise be impossible to solve with overreliance on rule-ased reasoning.

The first one is breast_lick which is a sexual act. The third has a (barely visible) pussy line. The second does seem like it should probably be Questionable to me.

wolfmanfur said:
Except nothing has changed. According to this article (since I am not canadian and I doubt you are either), this is a misconception on your part. The few women that managed to overturn a ruling probably did so by proving that they were either not in a public space or they did not intentionally act indecently.

That's the same article I gave you. The very first two lines:

It’s been decades since courts in B.C. and Ontario supported the idea of women going bare-chested if they choose.

However, plenty of questions about the legalities of public nudity, in general, remain.

Women going topless is a question distinct from public nudity in general. The B.C. and Ontario court rulings are linked in the article, you can read them yourself, and they read to me pretty clear that a topless female in public doesn't, on its own, rise to the level of indecency to run afoul of the law. It's not because it "wasn't a public space" (they very much were) or because they didn't "intentionally act indecently" (they definitely intended to be topless). Intentionality only plays a part in whether the purpose of the act was "to insult or offend".

You're right though that I'm not Canadian. There may be and likely are nuances here I don't know about. But I do know I have heard Canadian women mention going topless is legal, and these articles and rulings seem to bare that out (pardon the pun).

wolfmanfur said:
For once I am trying to help you, what country in the civilized world gives preferential treatment to breasts over other dirty parts, no anecdotal evidence, no special areas that allow nudity in general and so does allow women to be topless, give me a real argument or a written law that considers the penis, vagina or anus to be dirty parts, but makes an exemption for the female breasts.

Even better, I gave you court rulings. No, the law doesn't specifically say "peepees, vagoos, and butt holes bad, boobas good". It says "a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order", where these court rulings then define "[in]decency" (which was left undefined in the law) as "an objective, national, community standard of tolerance", and in turn state topless females in public "[do] not exceed the community standard of tolerance". So far there are no rulings I know about saying the same for penises, balls, vaginas, or anuses, which does mean breasts are treated differently.

watsit said:
So you're not talking about "the same principle as breasts" as you tried to make it out to be.

See the thumbnails I posted.

Well, here you're trying to make even greater changes to tags and tag ratings beyond simply making genitals and anuses Questionable.

It's simple, it's because it has nothing to do with anus or genitals being explicit by themselves, but rather the fact that I don't want suggestive art in general to be categorized safe. This is a different problem at hand entirely, but one I am willing to bring up while we are ai it since the post is about ratings anyway.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. There's nothing particularly naughty going on, so I can see why it wouldn't be Questionable.

Yeah, apparently a character blushing with the bedroom eyes is not naughty. Ask any normie what they think of this image and they will all say te same thing "It's Nsfw!"

I really don't think you understand the nuances that a rating system should adopt.

That last part, having "nothing to see". If there's nothing to see, there's nothing there to make it Questionable. If there's a bulge or uncovered breasts, those would make an image questionable as there is something to see. I'd agree the wiki is poorly stated, but that still follows the same pattern: nude by itself doesn't necessitate being Questionable, but a nude post can be Questionable when it has Questionable elements (uncovered breasts, etc).

Nude is still vague, there is no defending that.

The first one is breast_lick which is a sexual act. The third has a (barely visible) pussy line. The second does seem like it should probably be Questionable to me.

The post is tagged armpit_lick and upon closer inspection you too would see the character is licking her armpit. This is a fetish and all fetish content must have a minimum rating of questionable, now if you argue that somehow this fetish art is explicit because of the fetish you would contradict your previous takes.

That's the same article I gave you. The very first two lines:
Women going topless is a question distinct from public nudity in general. The B.C. and Ontario court rulings are linked in the article, you can read them yourself, and they read to me pretty clear that a topless female in public doesn't, on its own, rise to the level of indecency to run afoul of the law. It's not because it "wasn't a public space" (they very much were) or because they didn't "intentionally act indecently" (they definitely intended to be topless). Intentionality only plays a part in whether the purpose of the act was "to insult or offend".

That is, again, anecdotal evidence. This doesn't change the fact the laws are still there and I could bet that if a man went topless outside he would have a minuscule likelyhood of getting into the same kind of trouble as a woman.

You're right though that I'm not Canadian. There may be and likely are nuances here I don't know about. But I do know I have heard Canadian women mention going topless is legal, and these articles and rulings seem to bare that out (pardon the pun).

I have posted an article where it says that nudity is not taken very seriously in Canada. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you.

Even better, I gave you court rulings. No, the law doesn't specifically say "peepees, vagoos, and butt holes bad, boobas good". It says "a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order", where these court rulings then define "[in]decency" (which was left undefined in the law) as "an objective, national, community standard of tolerance", and in turn state topless females in public "[do] not exceed the community standard of tolerance". So far there are no rulings I know about saying the same for penises, balls, vaginas, or anuses, which does mean breasts are treated differently.

A court ruling is anecdotal evidence. <sigh>
Taking the example of murder, again, it is not legal, but murder cases have been overturned before.
There have likely been cases of full-body exhibitionism that have been overturned too.

wolfmanfur said:
It's simple, it's because it has nothing to do with anus or genitals being explicit by themselves, but rather the fact that I don't want suggestive art in general to be categorized safe.

Your own personal opinion of what you find to be suggestive, which not everyone shares.

wolfmanfur said:
Yeah, apparently a character blushing with the bedroom eyes is not naughty. Ask any normie what they think of this image and they will all say te same thing "It's Nsfw!"

They're not bedroom eyes as they don't have a seductive expression. They more appear to be falling under some kind of hypnosis, or could be feeling sick, neither of which is grounds for being Questionable or Explicit.

wolfmanfur said:
The post is tagged armpit_lick and upon closer inspection you too would see the character is licking her armpit.

Sure, from the thumbnail it looked like they're licking the side of the breast. I'm actually surprised armpit_lick isn't considered Explicit, but you learn something new every day.

wolfmanfur said:
A court ruling is anecdotal evidence. <sigh>

Wat. A court ruling is the law applied. It is what dictates what the law means, and is the standard going forward that all courts below it abide by for future cases handling the same question (unless and until a future ruling by the same court or higher says differently).

wolfmanfur said:
Taking the example of murder, again, it is not legal, but murder cases have been overturned before.

That analogy is irrelevant, as that says nothing about why they were convicted in the first place or why it was overturned. No one is questioning what actually happened, it's purely a question of if that activity (that both sides agree happened) violates the law. The trial courts ruled yes, the appellate and supreme courts ruled no, and that latter ruling is what stands should someone else do the same thing in those courts' jurisdictions in the future.

Keep it the way it is.

watsit said:
Your own personal opinion of what you find to be suggestive, which not everyone shares.

I am actually quite sure everyone who doesn't have an account here think this is a porn website and nothing else. So, sure, keep thinking that way. In this equation, "everyone" is irrelevant when it concerns only folks who use e6 and not the normies who don't. With the utmost confidence I can say immediately that my opinion of what constitutes suggestive conttent aligns with more folks than your's. Really, all I ask for is to be able to browse e6 (or its sister site e9) in peace in a public space and this can't happen when ecchi/horny bait populate the safe rating

They're not bedroom eyes as they don't have a seductive expression. They more appear to be falling under some kind of hypnosis, or could be feeling sick, neither of which is grounds for being Questionable or Explicit.

This is why I said blush alone should be grounds for the questionable rating as only a minority of posts have the blush tag and actually happen to be safe. The bast majority of blush exist in drawings that ae suggestive, I think I have made that point clear with the many pictures posted in this thread.
post #3910471 post #3892396 post #3296600
You even said yourself at some point "Not sure I'd call these "innocent"", so I know you think the same way I do on this issue, you refuse to yield because you're adamant to win the internet debate.
For example, this is weird, Anus or not Anus.
post #3770042

Wat. A court ruling is the law applied. It is what dictates what the law means, and is the standard going forward that all courts below it abide by for future cases handling the same question (unless and until a future ruling by the same court or higher says differently).

That analogy is irrelevant, as that says nothing about why they were convicted in the first place or why it was overturned. No one is questioning what actually happened, it's purely a question of if that activity (that both sides agree happened) violates the law. The trial courts ruled yes, the appellate and supreme courts ruled no, and that latter ruling is what stands should someone else do the same thing in those courts' jurisdictions in the future.

All right then. That still doesn't address the fact laws on nudity are not enforced in Canada which strangely you have not been too eager to acknowledge.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5281720/toplessness-public-nudity-legal/

thegreatwolfgang said:
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).

and that's absolutely ridiculous, I can't even tell what frame that supposedly occurs and clearly no part of this video is meant to be pornographic in any way what so ever
this is really the perfect example of why x_anus always being explicit is bullshit and makes no sense

simski said:
and that's absolutely ridiculous, I can't even tell what frame that supposedly occurs and clearly no part of this video is meant to be pornographic in any way what so ever
this is really the perfect example of why x_anus always being explicit is bullshit and makes no sense

The x_anus appears on the 4-5 second mark.

Having the Explicit rating does not mean that it is inherently pornographic in nature, people just assume that since it appears on every pornographic material on this site.
But I digress, the topic on whether x_anus should be considered explicit or not is currently being discussed vehemently in the comments between your last reply and this one.

Regardless of that, it would still be considered Explicit due to featuring dismemberment. No matter how toony or graphic.

thegreatwolfgang said:
The x_anus appears on the 4-5 second mark.

Having the Explicit rating does not mean that it is inherently pornographic in nature, people just assume that since it appears on every pornographic material on this site.
But I digress, the topic on whether x_anus should be considered explicit or not is currently being discussed vehemently in the comments between your last reply and this one.

Regardless of that, it would still be considered Explicit due to featuring dismemberment. No matter how toony or graphic.

Fair, I did not notice the dismemberment.

I do still believe that it would make more sense to consider ALL nudity a minimum of Questionable rating but not automatically Explicit, the same way as Breasts are currently considered on the site. "Questionable" be the middleman tag it is meant to be, have a drawing be possible to be Questionable if it contains tasteful non-sexual or suggestive nudity, and then let context decide if it's Explicit. I think Breasts, Anus, Penises and Vaginas should not automatically be labeled Explicit, rather they should always be automatically be labeled Questionable, and we will have to use judgement if it is to be considered Explicit.

clawstripe said:
Scandinavia (Sweden, at least) generally doesn't have such a problem with topless women in public, for starters.

There are no topless women in public in Sweden, and it is definitely not acceptable. There was a brief fad of public topless sunbathing at the beach in the 80's, otherwise it's just a meme.

skjora said:
There are no topless women in public in Sweden, and it is definitely not acceptable. There was a brief fad of public topless sunbathing at the beach in the 80's, otherwise it's just a meme.

Good to know. Thank you. :)

Topless sunbathing is allowed on Swedish beaches to my knowledge, as well as on your property. Nudity is allowed on nude beaches and nude baths as well as in your own home and property on the condition that you are not intentionally flashing people of performing sex acts in open view to intentionally be seen. It's 7 days into April and we had snow here today though so I doubt anyone is going to be naked in public here in Sweden right now because they'd be freezing their nipples off.