Ratings check thread

Get ready to fix hundreds if not thousands of images if you're gonna go by that logic. But let's see what the mods think about this.

Let's just say this one has very little in common with being discreet about the exposure.

Yeah, you may be right about that. As for whoever's giving post #2275472 a Q rating, the exposure is nowhere near as blatant and is generally in line with the other cat lingerie posts.

tapnek said:

Get ready to fix hundreds if not thousands of images if you're gonna go by that logic. But let's see what the mods think about this.

Oh, the problem is, at least, that's what i think, that the rating is locked. But I gonna shut up now since mods are already talking^^.

post #2218182

Her hand is in his pants, but none of the action is visible. I rated it Q, but Inferno considers it E.

Well, I would rate it as Questionable but she's clearly has her hand in his shorts for the purpose of sexually arousing him. There's no visible penis or erection, though.

Something definitely needs to be done with seven pages of vibrator rating:s. I'll edit more obvious q's later, but there are going to be many edge cases.
Not to mention that wiki places all sex toys in q.

Generally, if the vibrator doesn't blatantly look like a dick, then it's most likely safe.

mrkun said:

Something definitely needs to be done with seven pages of vibrator rating:s. I'll edit more obvious q's later, but there are going to be many edge cases.
Not to mention that wiki places all sex toys in q.

Not all vibrators are purpose built sex toys though, so there are definitely vibrators that would be rated safe at minimum. For example post #1591635 is a magic wand electric massager, while it is used as a sex toy it isn't just a sex toy.

NWF_Renim said:

Not all vibrators are purpose built sex toys though, so there are definitely vibrators that would be rated safe at minimum. For example post #1591635 is a magic wand electric massager, while it is used as a sex toy it isn't just a sex toy.

I understand that, but explicitly non-sexual use of sex toys is uncommon, even among rating:s.

I'll rerate posts from this search in the following order:

• first, posts with obvious usage of toys for their main purpose;
• second, posts with toys about to be used or implied to be used;
• third, everything else or some other heuristics.

EDIT: Here go posts I'm conflicted about.
First pass:

• post #778806 has explicit usage, but seems mainly humorous.
• post #916641 — same.
• post #964413 to post #964777 — what.
• post #1031296 — what, again.
• post #1181394 and post #1181395 may look safe per se, but considering the context..
• post #2266527 is same first two.

EDIT2: Okay, having gone through them all, I have some better ideas for categorizing.

• Sometimes, sex toys are a little background detail, such as in post #472405, post #984338 and post #2190370. Those seem safe to me.
• Sometimes, hitachi magic wand could be interpreted as a non-sexual massager, but probably isn't (examples: post #169739, post #986930, post #1071324). Not sure about those, but I'd say that's questionable.
• Rarely, they are! I've only found post #1007821, though, and it still may be questionable for perverted overtones.
• Sometimes, toys may not be in the focus, but still contribute to the general sexual feel from the picture, such as in post #2255849, post #1882961, post #1697075, post #1171441, post #1049509. I think those, too, are questionable.
• Sometimes, toys are in the focus, and removing them either would make no sense, or change the picture to something more or less innocent, such as in post #1795876, post #1193227, post #1114536 and post #680299. Again, those seem mostly questionable to me, though things like post #279154 I'm not sure about.
• Finally, sometimes I have no idea what's going on, or I do, but it makes little sense even so. Examples: post #2105856, post #2067085 and post #834927. Those, I think, use toys in some misunderstood or metaphorical sense, and so are safe.

Thoughts?

post #2313815 is rated as Explicit but we don't see any genitals or exposed nipples nor do we see the actual strap-on itself fucking RJ. Should this be rated as Questionable and the sex tag be changed to implied sex?

Rating:Explicit: For pornography — images containing explicit sex, gratuitously exposed genitals, or that are otherwise pornographic.
(From the relevant wiki page).
-> Otherwise pornographic is here the relevant situation in my eyes. So this picture's rating is fine.

I wasn't even sure they were having sex until I looked at the tags and RJ's breath.

tapnek said:

post #2313815 is rated as Explicit but we don't see any genitals or exposed nipples nor do we see the actual strap-on itself fucking RJ. Should this be rated as Questionable and the sex tag be changed to implied sex?

I'd retag it since there's nothing to see and we tag what we see.

According to howto:rate, "Clearly visible sexual fluids (cum and pussy juice)" makes an image explicit, but I did a pull for "-rating:e cum" and "-rating:e pussy_juice" and saw 15 and 140 pages of results respectively.

Is the presence of sexual fluids black and white in regards to an explicit rating, or is there a gray area where some of those images are considered questionable instead?

If sexual fluids do make an image automatically explicit, perhaps we should add a line to the corresponding wiki pages that say that?

I'm hoping for clarification from someone more experienced with rating than I am before I consider changing anything.

Maybe it is possible to implement, that every tag, that falls under this definition, have to imply a e-rating or maybe easier, if the upload isn't rated with e, you can't upload it.

I'm against something like that. There are always exceptions and having something like cum imply a strict Explicit rating would bring up problems. Besides, this thead is to to help with how to properly rate certain posts.

Rating check for post #2355452

It's currently listed as questionable, due to how the food looks like breasts, but that's just a misleading thumbnail. Should it be safe instead?

Exhazar said:

Rating check for post #2355452

It's currently listed as questionable, due to how the food looks like breasts, but that's just a misleading thumbnail. Should it be safe instead?

Yes, that was me not paying attention at all.

post #2369507 Would like more opinions on this post for rating please.