Okay, so there are users on this site that think that these need to be rated questionable.
post #445523
post #445524
So, what do you guys think? I say safe, but I don't know.

Just my opinion, but I'd go questionable on the first one, safe on the second. Reason: Those are some pretty overt melons on the winged chick. The second one you could plausibly explain to a co-worker if they saw it was your phone background.

elad said:
Just my opinion, but I'd go questionable on the first one, safe on the second. Reason: Those are some pretty overt melons on the winged chick. The second one you could plausibly explain to a co-worker if they saw it was your phone background.

Same here, I'd say Questionable for the 1st and safe for the 2nd one.

JoeX said:
Okay, so there are users on this site that think that these need to be rated questionable.
post #445523
post #445524
So, what do you guys think? I say safe, but I don't know.

I'd have to agree with those users, even though there are no naughty bits, the fact that they are nude, and are quite nsfw would make me say that they are questionable.

The reason I don't think they should be rated questionable is because there are images that have the same content, and have more prominent breasts, and those are rated safe. I do understand where you guys are coming from, and I respect your opinions. I'm not going to do anything until the admins (hopefully) weigh in.

No nips = safe.

Nude anthros usually get rated as questionable, regardless if they have nipples or not. I'm not saying that it's necessarily correct, but if those are both safe then there's tons of images that need to be re-rated.

I'd rate them safe, they aren't really of a sexual nature or trying to seduce the viewer.
I'm sure there will be some soccer moms who think that this is already hell spawned pornography but really? Looks innocent enough to me.

The question should rather be "questionable" or "explicit", those images certainly aren't safe. I can't imagine any workplace where they would be considered SFW besides sex shops and Bad Dragon.

Der_Traubenfuchs said:
The question should rather be "questionable" or "explicit", those images certainly aren't safe. I can't imagine any workplace where they would be considered SFW besides sex shops and Bad Dragon.

Definitely never explicit, this is the warnerbros. level of nudity, with the addition of breasts without nipples, and even exposed tits never make something explicit.

If I were uploading them I'd probably just make them both questionable to be safe (no pun intended).

And remember that our rating system is relative to the site, so questionable doesn't mean like pg-13 or anything of the sort

Could someone please lock those ratings at safe?

JoeX said:
Could someone please lock those ratings at safe?

Handled

TheHuskyK9 said:
Handled

Thank you, sir! :)

Wait, er, why safe?
As far as I can see, the wasn't any kind of consensus about it and majority seemed to support questionable instead.

That's how I'd rate them too. Definitely borderline, but I'd compare nude anthros to nude humans: they look like they should be wearing clothes, so those don't really seem safe to me.

Genjar said:
Wait, er, why safe?
As far as I can see, the wasn't any kind of consensus about it and majority seemed to support questionable instead.

That's how I'd rate them too. Definitely borderline, but I'd compare nude anthros to nude humans: they look like they should be wearing clothes, so those don't really seem safe to me.

Handled (I only changed the 2nd one because the 1st one looks pretty safe imo but feel free to change it if you disagree, you have the privilege you know :p)

TheHuskyK9 said:
Handled (I only changed the 2nd one because the 1st one looks pretty safe imo but feel free to change it if you disagree, you have the privilege you know :p)

Makes sense. The second one does seem slightly more questionable.

What about this, though:
post #432091

Currently rated questionable, but has the exact same pose as the first one. It still seems kind of risque to me, for some reason..

I think they should all be rated safe. Let's be honest, here. Uploaders often forget to change the ratings. Those posts never should have been rated questionable in the first place.

Genjar said:
It still seems kind of risque to me, for some reason..

She looks like any other nude anthro if you aren't looking at her from up close. It's already been pointed out, but this is supposed to be a "would you be remotely comfortable looking at this in public" rating, not an age rating.

Genjar said:
Makes sense. The second one does seem slightly more questionable.

What about this, though:
post #432091

Currently rated questionable, but has the exact same pose as the first one. It still seems kind of risque to me, for some reason..

I'd rate that as safe. I see only innocence in that image. Nothing suggesting or hinting sex at all

JoeX said:
I think they should all be rated safe. Let's be honest, here. Uploaders often forget to change the ratings. Those posts never should have been rated questionable in the first place.

From looking at both uploaders tag history, they're both capable of rating their uploads correctly.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I'd rate that as safe. I see only innocence in that image. Nothing suggesting or hinting sex at all

From looking at both uploaders tag history, they're both capable of rating their uploads correctly.

Well, I meant uploaders as a whole. Every once in a while, it slips our minds. Also, none of these images are suggestive in any way. They should all be rated safe, and any and all images that have no nipples and no genitalia should be, too.

JoeX said:
They should all be rated safe, and any and all images that have no nipples and no genitalia should be, too.

So by that definition, you're saying that this should be safe:
post #408756

I think not. She has no nipples, no exposed genitalia of any sort, but yet even without those, that image is still not safe. How? 1) The text "How do you want me master?"....pretty sure that you don't want to say that to your freinds or family. 2) Holding her boobs. She's obviously trying to please her master, definitely not safe. 3) Her look. Her face is screaming "I've been naughty and I need to be disciplined" and to seal the deal dem bedroom eyes. I would go on some more but I think you get my point. By your definition, that image should be safe....nah, safe is long gone from that image

TheHuskyK9 said:
So by that definition, you're saying that this should be safe:
post #408756

I think not. She has no nipples, no exposed genitalia of any sort, but yet even without those, that image is still not safe. How? 1) The text "How do you want me master?"....pretty sure that you don't want to say that to your freinds or family. 2) Holding her boobs. She's obviously trying to please her master, definitely not safe. 3) Her look. Her face is screaming "I've been naughty and I need to be disciplined" and to seal the deal dem bedroom eyes. I would go on some more but I think you get my point. By your definition, that image should be safe....nah, safe is long gone from that image

Well, that certainly is an exception. I suppose as long as the image is sexual/suggestive in nature, it's questionable. I believe as long as the image is not suggestive in any way, it should be safe.

JoeX said:
I believe as long as the image is not suggestive in any way, it should be safe.

So does everyone else, that's why there's disagreement. Personally, I believe it is better to err on the side of questionable, since that's the rating you're not supposed to have any expectations of either way.

DrHorse said:
It's already been pointed out, but this is supposed to be a "would you be remotely comfortable looking at this in public" rating, not an age rating.

Yep. Which is why I'd rate those questionable: they're certainly not safe for public viewing.

Well... not over here, anyway.

Yeah, definitely still questionable. There's still big ol' bare boobs, even if there's no nipples.

I should make a nice and long wiki entry for this

I'd definitely agree on questionable, since being rated as safe would allow them to show on e926 which is specifically meant to be entirely safe as work.

tony311 said:
Yeah, definitely still questionable. There's still big ol' bare boobs, even if there's no nipples.

they aren't bare, they're covered in fur.

I can agree on questionable though, for purposes of e926. That takes greater priority than opinion ever should.