It's not sexual. He's holding her like a gun and with no self-awareness. It's safe.
Posted under General
It's not sexual. He's holding her like a gun and with no self-awareness. It's safe.
post #2917452 post #2115765
Is bandaid on nipples safe? Not counting boys of course.
ion288 said:
post #2917452 post #2115765
Is bandaid on nipples safe? Not counting boys of course.
Not when they are showing that much.
Does a single used condom, and not a particularly messy one, really make an otherwise Safe image Explicit? I think it's reasonable to treat it the same way as other cases of "Implied or obscured bodily fluids".
You could go with Questionable as a middle ground.
That's what I did, actually. She is holding a used condom after all, so Q seems correct to me. Unbreakable (who uploaded it) changed it back to E, so I came here to get a third opinion. Given your proposal, I'll set it to Q again for now.
Flopsy said:
That's what I did, actually. She is holding a used condom after all, so Q seems correct to me. Unbreakable (who uploaded it) changed it back to E, so I came here to get a third opinion. Given your proposal, I'll set it to Q again for now.
Yeah I thought it was explicit because it was pretty clear it was a filled condom but if others agree it's Q I'm not gonna change it back.
post #2625241 - Does this count as “clearly lacking sexual content” and “innocent romance”, as howto:rate calls it? Seems to be past that to me.
kittey said:
post #2625241 - Does this count as “clearly lacking sexual content” and “innocent romance”, as howto:rate calls it? Seems to be past that to me.
Implied cunnilingus, This is Q. Not sure about loli though.
post #14545 Is there enough covered nipples for this to be Q?
post #50696 Is there enough bulge for a Q rating or is the act of placing a gun against the male area a Questionable action?
ion288 said:
post #14545 Is there enough covered nipples for this to be Q?
Did you get the right post? I see no covered nipples, only balloon breasts in impossible clothes. Lack of proper bottomwear was enough for a Q rating in ye olde days.
kittey said:
Did you get the right post? I see no covered nipples, only balloon breasts in impossible clothes. Lack of proper bottomwear was enough for a Q rating in ye olde days.
That is indeed the wrong post. post #143279 is the one I meant to query. Dont know how that ended up there.
ion288 said:
I think that post and its family are solid S. There's detectable covered_nipples, but they are not prominent. Nothing else in the picture tends toward erotica.
Flopsy said:
Nothing else in the picture tends toward erotica.
Desensitization to pantyshots detected. ;-)
kittey said:
Desensitization to pantyshots detected. ;-)
Rating:Safe
[...]
- Tasteful panty shots.
忍猫 said:
- Tasteful pantyshots.
In ye olde times, pantyshots were Q by default and only particularly tasteful qualified for S. Nowadays pantyshots are S by default and only particularly racy ones get a Q rating, which is what I meant by desensitization. In 2005, Megatokyo’s Dom wrote a quite interesting rant on a similar issue.
And no one answered my question about post #50696
ion288 said:
What, precisely, do you see here that would make this rating:q or rating:e? They're just a bunch of inanimate objects.
And no one answered my question about post #50696
I think it's really too sketchy to tell what's going on there. It could just be a wrinkle in his jeans.
ion288 said:
And no one answered my question about post #50696
I’d rate it Q. A blushing girl poking a guy’s dick with a pistol (with or without qualifying for bulge) has pretty strong sexual implications and is not “clearly lacking sexual content”.
Thanks. Are the armor pieces/pasties enough for a S rating on post #2898695? Seems Q to me.