Posted under General
This was changed back to E by none other than evazion, but it still seems strange to me. Plain full-frontal nudity is generally Q, and this is about as discreet as a visible penis gets. Flaccid, moderate size, covered by transparent clothing and not emphasized in the image. Thoughts?
this is currently rating:e, but i'd think it would fit better under rating:q, due to the fact that i can't really see any sexual intent here? would like some other opinions on this
I rated that post E because I think visible dicks should be an automatic E. I recently went through penis rating:q and re-rated a bunch of blatantly exposed cocks from Q to E.
This particular post is debatable, but in general, I think if something is borderline you should go with the higher rating. There's no harm in rating something a little too high. There is harm in rating everything too low.
This ties in to topic #18572, but basically the rating system has gotten extremely diluted over time and I find this to be very frustrating. It used to be that visible genitals were an automatic E. The help text on the uploads page used to say that E was "hardcore porn, visible genitals", Q was "Nudity, anything erotic", and S was everything else. But over time the standards have lowered to the point where now even blatantly exposed genitals aren't E. I see things like throbbing futa cocks or closeups of a person's gaping asshole being rated Q for a month and it drives me nuts.
I'm sure some will say that sure, blatantly exposed genitals should be E, but "simple" nudity should be Q. The problem with this is that if you don't have simple, clearcut rules like "visible penis = automatic E", then everyone will say that their posts are tasteful and artistic and definitely not porn, and the system will gradually decline as everyone pushes the rating standards lower and lower.
nottilda said:
this is currently rating:e, but i'd think it would fit better under rating:q, due to the fact that i can't really see any sexual intent here? would like some other opinions on this
Pubic hair. It's traditionally considered obscene(ish) in various cultures (including Western and Japanese). Often moreso than 'simple' nudity exposing the genitals (which is why a lot of traditional art and sculptures seem to be okay depicting the genitals but the pubic hair are conspicuously missing. And why older AVs automatically censor the pubic hair). Standards have changed though.
Currently, I would probably rate that Q myself, but if someone rates E I wouldn't change it.
Updated
NNescio said:
Pubic hair. It's traditionally considered obscene(ish) in various cultures (including Western and Japanese). Often moreso than 'simple' nudity exposing the genitals (which is why a lot of traditional art and sculptures seem to be okay depicting the genitals but the pubic hare are conspicuously missing. And why older AVs automatically censor the pubic hair). Standards have changed though.
Currently, I would probably rate that Q myself, but if someone rates E I wouldn't change it.
howto:rate explicitly counts pubic hair without overt genital exposure as Q, albeit I'm not sure how long the current version of that page will remain in effect if we're about to see standards tighten.
Should this be Q or E? On Pixiv the artist didn't give it an R-18 rating, but I left it as E just in case. Would appreciate more detailed feedback on this.
Zansnae793 said:
Should this be Q or E? On Pixiv the artist didn't give it an R-18 rating, but I left it as E just in case. Would appreciate more detailed feedback on this.
I think Explicit is correct. She's openly presenting her genitals to the viewer.
post #4912692 and children
Not sure how much detail is needed to make toilet use/peeing turn Q, especially with loli involved.
I'm fairly sure Q is enough, but it was changed to E. Thoughts?
post #5143271 (and its child post)
Are they considered S or Q?
Unbreakable said:
post #4912692 and children
Not sure how much detail is needed to make toilet use/peeing turn Q, especially with loli involved.
Make them all Questionable just to be safe.
VR-Man said:
post #5143271 (and its child post)
Are they considered S or Q?
Questionable
post #5167064
Is this considered "Tasteful lingerie" to stay in S or sexually suggestive enough to go to Q?
yelite said:
post #5167064
Is this considered "Tasteful lingerie" to stay in S or sexually suggestive enough to go to Q?
I'd call it S. It doesn't read as sexual at all to me.
yelite said:
post #5167064
Is this considered "Tasteful lingerie" to stay in S or sexually suggestive enough to go to Q?
Q
yelite said:
post #5167064
Is this considered "Tasteful lingerie" to stay in S or sexually suggestive enough to go to Q?
I agree with Bob on this one, the image really doesn't seem to be focused on the sexual aspect at all, it doesn't even have a explicit covered nipple. But I wouldn't be surprised if it end being rated as Q also.
yelite said:
post #5167064
Is this considered "Tasteful lingerie" to stay in S or sexually suggestive enough to go to Q?
I regard the "tasteful lingerie" category as a contrast to undergarments that deliberately expose intimate areas, whether by lacy materials (post #956102), sheer fabric (post #2439106), or revealing design (post #3360795, post #4963499).
This is none of those. The upper portion of the bra cup seems like it might be slightly transparent, but the lighting in the image is such that it's impossible to tell for sure. I don't see how it's any more suggestive than any other bra or bikini top.
Currently rated E, but there's only talk about sex, nothing visual. Okay to drop it to Q?
