andalus said:
Safe... it's just a pantyshot...
Posted under General
andalus said:
Safe... it's just a pantyshot...
I changed it to Q, but Sacriven insists that it's E. Hasn't it been established that frontal nudity without strong genital/anal focus should be rated Q?
Flopsy said:
I changed it to Q, but Sacriven insists that it's E. Hasn't it been established that frontal nudity without strong genital/anal focus should be rated Q?
Yes.
Rating guidelines, Rating:Questionable:
- Non-blatantly exposed genitals, full frontal nudity without additional "action" or bodily fluids.
Despite the human body consisting of about 60% water, I believe water from a shower doesn’t fall under “bodily fluids”.
I changed it to questionable and locked the rating. Sacriven can undo that, though.
post #2686545
Is it really “clearly lacking all sexual content” to qualify for a safe rating?
kittey said:
post #2686545
Is it really “clearly lacking all sexual content” to qualify for a safe rating?
I would personally say that, because of the implication of it being after-sex, I'd lean towards questionable, especially since one of the nude parties is a loli. If the girl had underwear on I'd totally rate it as safe, though, but being nude gives it that implication.
post #2465660 is locked to Questionable. It seems safe to me, she is wearing some kind of harem outfit and not engaging in any sexually suggestive act.
Does post #573816 really warrant a Q rating? All you really see are the outline of her nipples, which are still covered by the bikini she's wearing. Looks pretty Safe to me.
Kyuzeth said:
Does post #573816 really warrant a Q rating? All you really see are the outline of her nipples, which are still covered by the bikini she's wearing. Looks pretty Safe to me.
Yes, howto:rate specifically mentions covered_nipples as being questionable.
Kyuzeth said:
Does post #573816 really warrant a Q rating? All you really see are the outline of her nipples, which are still covered by the bikini she's wearing. Looks pretty Safe to me.
Rating Guidelines said:
Rating:Questionable
Sadly, too many users ignore the rating guidelines and gravitate to safer ratings, rating explicit images as questionable and questionable images as safe. :-/
provence said:
Doesn't that mean that the guidelines might be outdated?
No, it means that too many users don’t read the guides. I regularly correct images tagged as loli and rating:safe, which is an invalid combination and is explicitly mentioned in the loli wiki, which some users don’t bother to read.
When it comes to covered nipples, I usually rate the posts Questionable when you can clearly see that the nipples are protruding through the clothing itself. If the nipples are much harder to notice like in post #2702617 or post #2687668, then I rate it as Safe.
tapnek said:
When it comes to covered nipples, I usually rate the posts Questionable when you can clearly see that the nipples are protruding through the clothing itself. If the nipples are much harder to notice like in post #2702617 or post #2687668, then I rate it as Safe.
This, if I have to look really, really closely to see it, I consider it inconsequential enough to be rated Safe.
I, too, believe that the guidelines are most useful if they are treated as things to consider instead of hard criteria. Raters should be assessing the overall character of the post (is it porn, erotica, or something else?), not grasping for reasons to rate something E/Q/S. Follow the spirit, not the letter, etc. etc.
I'd rate post #573816 Safe. It's clearly a pin-up, but not quite erotica. As a matter of fact, I still believe it could be useful to insert an "R" rating between Q and S, to separate things like post #573816 from pictures of rocks and trees. The distinctions between Q, R and S won't always be clear-cut, but neither are the ones between the current ratings. I generally support the current rating guidelines and practice, but I can't deny that the Safe rating has ended up covering a very wide range of content.
The only thing remotely Q in the picture is the naked individual behind the house, and to me that looks like a clear case of non-sexual nudity.
I see nothing that makes it questionable. I'll turn it safe for now, just making sure by asking here.