Posted under Tags
DschingisKhan said:
post #5088488
Is this kiss too "sexually charged" to qualify for rating:g? I don't think it is, but I'd like a second opinion.
No. Light blush, no saliva, no tongue, pretty G.
post #473407
Another rating guideline question, do you think the plethora of skulls here is a disqualifier for rating:g?
I wouldn’t consider bleached skulls to be sensitive imagery.
DschingisKhan said:
post #473407
Another rating guideline question, do you think the plethora of skulls here is a disqualifier for rating:g?
We have a thread specifically for rating questions at topic #8495 (Ratings check thread) if you have any more in the future.
DschingisKhan said:
post #5088488
Is this kiss too "sexually charged" to qualify for rating:g? I don't think it is, but I'd like a second opinion.
The kiss itself isn't sexually charged but the empasized breasts under the impossible clothes is what would keep it in S
Mayhem-Chan said:
The kiss itself isn't sexually charged but the empasized breasts under the impossible clothes is what would keep it in S
They're not really that emphasized and the clothes probably don't even qualify for impossible clothes. It may qualify because of the breast press and symmetrical docking tags, but I'm not sure if those tag even apply; it looks to me like they're just in close proximity because of the hug.
Blank_User said:
…
What I was thinking. There’s no framed breasts and hardly any bare skin, proximity is the only crime here.
Blank_User said:
They're not really that emphasized and the clothes probably don't even qualify for impossible clothes. It may qualify because of the breast press and symmetrical docking tags, but I'm not sure if those tag even apply; it looks to me like they're just in close proximity because of the hug.
That's kind of irrelevant to point the (supposed) "because" of the emphasized breasts when we're talking about how the breasts look and how it affects rating.
And i see no reason why this wouldn't apply to impossible clothes, the right girl's breast is pointing straight between the left girl's and doesn't look "pressed" by anything other the clothing that is covering it, and rather looks way too defined under all that clothing for it to not count as an S + impossible clothes, it's a thick-fabric jacket on top of a least a shirt; clothes like this do not normally let you discern the whole contour of one single breast, this just doesn't happen.
Mayhem-Chan said:
...
All I will say (to keep this focused on tagging) is that you can probably find something impossible with the clothing in most posts (even in completely SFW posts) if you look at them closely enough. I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn for impossible clothes, but generally speaking, applying the tag too broadly would make it too difficult to use.
Blank_User said:
All I will say (to keep this focused on tagging) is that you can probably find something impossible with the clothing in most posts (even in completely SFW posts) if you look at them closely enough. I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn for impossible clothes, but generally speaking, applying the tag too broadly would make it too difficult to use.
It's kind of absurd to consider applying impossible clothes to post #5088488 is "too broad".
"you can probably find something impossible with the clothing in most posts" but not this kind of impossible, there's a huge difference between upholding strictly realistic cloth drawing standards, and recognizing that breasts being covered by at least two layers of non-body-conforming type of clothing including a jacket, yet so closely defining the skin surface in it's curve from the upside to the bottom side is unambiguously a case of impossible clothes. You don't have to look "close" at post #5088488 to see how unrealistically defined the breasts are, even despite the lower color contrast area they're in.
And let's not mention the "SFW" posts you mentioned, don't forget that on danbooru, the standards for a post to be correctly rated G are deceptively strict.
Mayhem-Chan said:
And let's not mention the "SFW" posts you mentioned, don't forget that on danbooru, the standards for a post to be correctly rated G are deceptively strict.
By SFW posts, I meant posts that should indisputably be rated G containing impossible clothes due to stylization or not "upholding strictly realistic cloth standards" as you put it. That was really more of an aside than anything else.
Also, I agree that the clothes in post #5088488 are technically impossible clothes. The question is whether they're impossible enough to be tagged as such. There aren't any discussions about this as far as I can tell, so I don't know what the general consensus, if any, is on the lower bound. I've only seen what is currently tagged, and it seems like most of them are more exaggerated cases than this. I have no problem with the tag being applied as long as it fits within the typical range on this site.
By the way, I rerated the post as S because it does seem borderline overall despite the earlier points I made, and because you and BobTheBuilder v1 had different opinions on the rating (prioritize S over G with disagreements). We shouldn't be debating ratings in this thread anyway.
Blank_User said:
We have a thread specifically for rating questions at topic #8495 (Ratings check thread) if you have any more in the future.
Oh, thanks, I missed that entirely. I think I expected it to be pinned near the top and when I didn't catch it on a quick scan...
Mayhem-Chan said:
breasts being covered by at least two layers of non-body-conforming type of clothing including a jacket, yet so closely defining the skin surface in it's curve from the upside to the bottom side
Gonna be honest, that wasn't even how I parsed that. It just looks like the right flap of her jacket is open a little bit to me.
I don't honestly agree that this constitutes an emphasis on breasts or that the portrayal of breasts is more lewd than the kiss itself (which is why I didn't mention them in my original post).
But fair enough, err on the side of caution.
post #6664920 do we have a specific tag for this kind of sitting?
Marto_Sepa said:
post #6664920 do we have a specific tag for this kind of sitting?
It's called riding sidesaddle.
humanfilth said:
Should there be a tag for Project Voltage material? I made a pool for it but I recently saw fanart of the Psychic-type design being posted on the site and was wondering if it would be a good idea.
post #6667779
What is the name of the sitting position?
QQWWU said:
post #6667779
What is the name of the sitting position?
post #5620049
How to describe what Sirfetchd is doing? Grinding is only for the sexual meaning, and pouding doesn't seem to exist. I feel like I have the verb on the tip of my tongue.
post #6670856
Is there a tag for taped notes? I used sticky note which feels close but I don't know if it's close enough.
Super_Affection said:
post #6670856
Is there a tag for taped notes? I used sticky note which feels close but I don't know if it's close enough.
Would tape + note work? Sticky note always had connotations of the (typically) yellow square variety to me at least (which the wiki page for it seems to reflect). I definitely feels like there should be a tag for taped notes there.
Maiden_in_Orange said:
Would tape + note work? Sticky note always had connotations of the (typically) yellow square variety to me at least (which the wiki page for it seems to reflect). I definitely feels like there should be a tag for taped notes there.
I went ahead and created taped note for now. If someone knows an existing tag we can move. tape note does show several similar results so that's probably appropriate too. I didn't think of tagging the tape separately, thanks.
