Rating tags general

Rating check? These are currently tagged explicit but I think they should be lower, but not certain to what:
>>2763536 >>2737578 >>935425

Then, although I’m pretty sure this one is correct as explicit, I’m not confident what’s depicted (or that it’s tagged correctly): >>905372
It’s tagged “futa” etc. but I would have guessed it’s supposed to be “fingering”. It was uploaded originally with almost no tags.

@Background Pony #4230
Questionable on the first 2, third I’m not sure on between Suggestive and Questionable (very borderline), it’ll need proper review.

Doesn’t look futa, probably a mistag, but this isn’t the thread for more general tagging questions, do note.

While looking at an artist’s works, I noticed many are tagged suggestive that I would think ought to be safe - not all of the posts in the linked search query (eg. the direct butt-shots are probably suggestive), but a majority. I’m uncertain especially among the drawings of characters in swimsuits, since they have varying “pin-up-ness” and variably exaggerated bodies. Could they be checked?

@Background Pony #4230
Hmm, I don’t think a majority should be Safe from looking over them (many of those outfits show a lot of boob area), but certainly a significant portion. I’ll do a few passes over it.

Rating (and tags) check? >>2935766

@Background Pony #4230
I don’t see what’s wrong with it. It’s perfectly fine at “safe”.

@Blissful690
Well, it was the artist who uploaded that and tagged at as suggestive in the first place. I assume they meant there to be some naughty implications that weren’t as self-evident in the image as they thought they were.

@Blissful690
That wasn’t the state of things when I posted. It’s already been retagged by a moderator.

>>2940758
Rating check? Right now, it’s grimdark and grotesque, which seems excessive. I might call it safe, creepy because semi-grotesque isn’t a rating.

Would >>2848007 be more appropriately suggestive rather than safe which it currently is?

I don’t think this should be explicit but I can’t figure it out based on the description of each rating
based on the descriptions I think suggestive but I’m not sure… cause questionable has it “in contact with” and it’s not quite that far here >>2944245
edit: I changed to suggestive.. if I’m wrong feel free to change it

I fail to understand how >>2942024 is considered “safe”.

A look over the past 10 pages of suggestive art I see stuff less offending tagged suggestive no problem, it’s clearly a suggestive pose and sexual in nature.

@Boshi
Uh, she’s just sitting there. She’s not wearing lingerie or underwear (in the normal we-don’t-normally-wear-clothes sort of way). She’s not sticking her butt out, she’s not making bedroom eyes, she just looks a bit annoyed and embarrassed. iMO it is easily safe. Perhaps you should be asking whether some of the things you think are more tame than this one ought to be safe instead of suggestive instead?

@Background Pony #4230
She’s blushing in what’s often considered provocative or fetish clothing, shouldn’t safe have higher standards than there simply not being a dick in her?

@Boshi
A dragon with the shapeliness of a teddy bear kneeling on the floor.

Chokers, leg warmers and arm warmers aren’t really inherently sexual, and them being popular or fetishised in genres of porn is not really relevant. The same applies to things like pencil skirts and stiletto heels and eyeglasses.

The pose and view angle combo may also be popular for pin ups, but that association doesn’t make it inherently sexual either.

I’m almost certain this will end up being “safe” but I can bring it up to staff discussion to settle this.

@Blissful690
Yes sorry, I forgot to refresh before clicking “post”, I have edited my thing to reflect the comments that were posted in between.

@saby
I think all together sends a certain message, isolating each on their own maybe not an issue but together I think it’s clearly provactive.

On the nose, sure I suppose it’s not specifically hitting any mark but the general description of “Suggestive” seems pretty relevant:

“Sexual implications and risqué/indecent acts or appearances like nudity.”

Yes, the characters are normally “naked” but there’s different sorts of nudity, in this the character is kneeled on the ground looking back, blushing, in a pose like was said usually used in pin ups, in clothes usually prominent in genres of porn, I think it highlights her “body” in the pose although no specifically sexual part is highlighted I think the best call would be to deem it risque and suggestive. I would think Suggestive and Questionable ratings would cover the gray area between Safe and Explicit, and I think Safe should be playing it “safe”.

Sorry for the essay on a pony image site, TL;DR I think there’s good grounds that this shouldn’t be safe. Safe and Suggestive/Questionable gray zone should maybe be considered more heavily.

@Boshi
You’re overthinking this. When it comes to whether or not something is safe, the easiest way to look at it is “could you put this on TV?”, “could this be on a magazine cover in a grocery store?”

I guess I haven’t seen enough pinups and porn, because I don’t recognize them as such.

@Background Pony #4230
Semi-grotesque may not exist, but Semi-grimdark is used instead it cases where it would be warranted from body horror.

@Background Pony #4230
Correct at Suggestive.

@Rainboom Dash
An obvious sex toy without looking much like genitals is Suggestive (the bit about sexual innuendo in Suggestive is what’s meant to cover this, i.e. if it’s shaped clearly like a buttplug, it’s implying a sexual use, therefore Suggestive).

@Boshi
I don’t really see anything here worse than what Rarity does sometimes in the show; sure, it may be meant to be alluring, but Suggestive is for things where there’s actually a clear sexual implication, like wiggling a butt at the viewer.

@Background Pony #B065
While I will second that rules of thumbs like this help, I must point out that daytime TV has things we’d easily rate Suggestive; a better rule of thumb would be whether it could be on a cartoon on Saturday mornings (when kids are expected to watch).

And even “Saturday morning kids cartoon” is a nebulous concept considering the range of nudity and other taboos. Exempli gratia, John Dillermand.

>>2447585 is currently tagged explicit, but if I’m not missing something, it should be either safe or suggestive?

@Background Pony #4230
Looks “safe” to me. Uploader probably mistook the character sitting on her slimy tentacle pet for another type of scenario involving tentacles.