Tagged with questionable, but there are some reasons which might change it to explicit :
Why ? :
- bondage
- sex toys in the background
Wny not ? :
- generally girls don't show their genitals in the picture
Anyway, I leave it your judgement.
Posted under General
Tagged with questionable, but there are some reasons which might change it to explicit :
Why ? :
- bondage
- sex toys in the background
Wny not ? :
- generally girls don't show their genitals in the picture
Anyway, I leave it your judgement.
Is the explicit rating given due to exposed genitals? It's fairly tame, even relative to a lot of rating:q images.
I'm curious if such depiction of panties allows me to tag it as safe.
The thing is that they lack clearly drawn labia, so I think it falls under safe ecchi, but it might be just me.
I generally agree with S1eth. post #996644 I *might* consider elevating to questionable due to the lifted skirt and spread eagle pose, but I'd have no second thoughts against putting post #996645 in safe.
It's not as simple and binary as "if cameltoe, then Q;" how tasteful the panties are being on display matters too.
I guess I'll revert post #996645 back to S, but I'm still unconvinced with post #996644 and its full-on display.
Updated
Personally these 2 are easily Q to me.
post #996645 features upskirt angle + fat labia + body curves emphasis + naughty face. Who wants to see that when browsing rating:s?
post #996645 is hardly a naughty face. Certainly not something that would be problematic if viewed at work, as opposed to say, post #999003 and post #999000. post #996644, however...
While I'm here:
post #999176 <--- Technically they are all naked. The thumbnail is definitely not safe-looking. Retag as Q?
Updated
I'm perfectly fine with post #996644 staying Q. For me though it's the pose and not the presence of panties that puts it there.
post #999176 is certainly not Q, it's not designed to be sexual, nor is it embellished any more than a child's Barbie Doll. It should remain S for the same reason that artistic nudes are. S isn't, never has been, and with our domain likely never will be truely SFW.
Aristocrat said:
post #996645 is hardly a naughty face.
She's blushing with an assertive smile and look toward the viewer that say "so? enjoying the view?".
Aristocrat said:
Certainly not something that would be problematic if viewed at work, as opposed to say, post #999003 and post #999000.
I don't agree at all.
I find post #999003 far less disturbing than post #996645, and the latter and post #999000 (the hell) are around the same level.
post #20080? There's sex in the background images but it has been rated Q.
I'm not sure if this should be classified as explicit or questionable (no genitals shown, but they basically do some sexual activities) :
post #1028961 + child post #1028963
post #1033685 - strap-on
I would still include that in "sex toys not being used" (yet).