How is this explicit?

VAM said:
How is this explicit?

I would say sheath fully exposed, but it's too dark to see.
And if that is the case, probably should be tagged male too.
Really good stuff though.

dracotay said:
I would say sheath fully exposed, but it's too dark to see.
And if that is the case, probably should be tagged male too.
Really good stuff though.

I would say someone has a pervert imagination.
This „black area“ is the right hind leg. Zoom in, please, there is nothing. So no one can Tag it as a male, because no one can see the sexual organs.

Conszious said:
I would say someone has a pervert imagination.
This „black area“ is the right hind leg. Zoom in, please, there is nothing. So no one can Tag it as a male, because no one can see the sexual organs.

I see what you're talking about, but rules are rules I guess :/

Conszious said:
I would say someone has a pervert imagination.
This „black area“ is the right hind leg. Zoom in, please, there is nothing. So no one can Tag it as a male, because no one can see the sexual organs.

dracotay said:
I see what you're talking about, but rules are rules I guess :/

Actually I pulled it up on one of my other screens, there is absolutely a sheath there. Here, I tweaked the colors a bit so y'all can see... it is pretty subtle, though. Link

Thanks for whoever caught it :)

SnowWolf said:
Actually I pulled it up on one of my other screens, there is absolutely a sheath there. Here, I tweaked the colors a bit so y'all can see... it is pretty subtle, though. Link

Thanks for whoever caught it :)

Ok, you are right. As I said, pervert imagination.

„This is explicit, it will ruin our Kids. There, can’t you see it? You have to photoshop the colors, but then you can see that the porn is obvious.“

*headmeetswallahundredtimes*

Btw, thank you for your help.

Conszious said:
Ok, you are right. As I said, pervert imagination.

„This is explicit, it will ruin our Kids. There, can’t you see it? You have to photoshop the colors, but then you can see that the porn is obvious.“

*headmeetswallahundredtimes*

Btw, thank you for your help.

You're very welcome! :D

Well, everyone's screens are a bit different-- on my living room computer, that thing is clear as day. On my personal PC? not so much.

That said, I get what you're saying, "oh no, a sheath! The Horror! THE HORROR!" ... and it honestly bugs me a bit to have a anatomically correct feral tagged explicit-- but I can understand it. where's the line between, say, this image and post #1407268 or post #1315102 ? It's easy for you or I to draw a line in our brain between a 'tasteful' nude and and an explicit one... but is that line where everyone else would draw it?

It's "easiest" to say that anything with those sexy bits are explicit. Even when they're in no way a focus, and are an animal being drawn realistically.

The rating rules used to be a lot more flexible--and messy!-- by saying that it was only erotic nudes that were explicit. I'm still not sure I agree with the rules as they sit now-- but hey're better than they were before, and more easily enforced.

SnowWolf said:
That said, I get what you're saying, "oh no, a sheath! The Horror! THE HORROR!" ... and it honestly bugs me a bit to have a anatomically correct feral tagged explicit-- but I can understand it. where's the line between, say, this image and post #1407268 or post #1315102 ?

Exactly.
"All sheaths are explicit" is a simple, easy-to-understand rule.

Whereas trying to split them into explicit and non-explicit, based on various factors that are subjective and hard to elucidate, cannot work as a rule. The ratings would be all over the place, and admins would have to constantly make judgement calls about these.