now this is good stuff

It says vaginal, and at 20s you indeed see the clitoris and urethra, but from the back shot you can't see the backdoor. Would this be a cloaca then? Even if it doesn't have the "average" cloaca appearance?

Azero said:
...from the back shot you can't see the backdoor. ...

It's probably just flushed with the tail.

mairo said:
Does not meet minimum quality standards. (Compression, 3rd party watermark)

what's the problem with the file?

anguirus12345 said:
what's the problem with the file?

Extremely severe dithering artifacting combined with video compression and pillarboxing, then huge overlay watermark for shareware software called BeeCut. I cannot see any reason why any of these should exsist in this upload, especially dithering artifacts as that's bypass of needing to limit colors to 256, which should not be a factor of modern video codecs. As for video editing, I don't see reason to use trials of shady and expensive shareware when you can use fully free tools without any of this nonsense.
These are all clearly againts our quality guidelines: "The chosen medium (image, video, flash) needs to be of a high quality."