Uploaded by Background Pony #B210
640x480 PNG 60 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Tags
+-SH suggestive190877 +-SH artist:captainchomp10 +-SH nurse redheart4387 +-SH pinkie pie256133 +-SH rainbow dash280225 +-SH earth pony447266 +-SH pony1604790 +-SH g42031141 +-SH 1000 hours in ms paint7162 +-SH aftermath394 +-SH bandage7725 +-SH dialogue93178 +-SH female1805113 +-SH funny porn1612 +-SH implied cunnilingus761 +-SH implied oral2304 +-SH implied sex8240 +-SH impossibly long tongue372 +-SH injured4545 +-SH lesbian117824 +-SH long tongue3407 +-SH mare742549 +-SH medical bondage110 +-SH ms paint7182 +-SH not salmon3185 +-SH ouch1309 +-SH ship:pinkiedash3685 +-SH shipping254460 +-SH tongue out147417 +-SH wat21827
Loading...
Loading...
Still got this on my FurAffinity account, so I put that up as the source. A few of my other pony-related things are still there as well.
And for the record, yeah, it’s totally implied cunnilingus. I originally made this as a silly companion image to the long tongue Pinkamena pics.
thumbs up Got it.
I’m not even sure it implies a cunnilingus. It could be a kiss.
@WingbeatPony
Oh, that’s a good rule indeed. Thanks.
First, as Joshua and BigMax pointed out, this image is neither safe nor explicit. The question, then, is how much “implied” is too much “implied.” My rule of thumb is: if it’s not happening right now it’s probably suggestive…if it’s happening but you can’t see it because it’s covered up (by a sheet, hand, out of frame) then the rating should be higher.
I’m jsut saying, look at every single other image with the “implied cunnilingus” tag. almost all of them are tagged questionable.
I’m pretty sure implied sexual contact would mean happening in the picture at the moment the picture shows, although out of direct view of the audience. Like a handjob under the table. You may not even be able to see the person’s arm, but facial expressions can imply what is happening at that moment. But that is just my reading on it. Like BigMax said, it’s best up to the mod.
Hehe, I felt like a lawyer there for a second.
Already done. Just banging dictionaries at this point.
All it needs to be is implied contact, in other words to be understood; tacit; without being directly expressed. As contrasted with “overt”.
What is implied is that sexual contact happened. Recently. Mind-bogglingly weirdly. Being in the past perhaps tips it down to suggestive, perhaps not.
(Pony sex gag tagging, deepest of srsbsns)
Now let’s take the old dictionary out, oh, lookie here, “Implied: suggested but not directly expressed; implicit.”
this image is sure as hell implying that a sexual contact took place, therefore questionable.
Now let’s take the old dictionary out, oh, lookie here, “Contact is the state or condition of physical touching.”
Notice the pattern here. “Sloppy kissing, groping” then “sexual contact.” This means two characters must be in physical contact at the least in the picture.
No, re-read.
You just read from the explicit description. Questionable description says anything which contains sexual content such as exposed or strategically covered nipples or nudity on human characters, fetish material (if it’s not explicit and still overtly sexual), sloppy kissing, groping, or ponies in sexy poses/outfits.
“Implied or overt sexual contact”, it says here. ‘Courthe it’thh pretty cartoonith thhex.
But it’s also not questionable seeing as there is no sexy stuff on display.
Lol, nope. Not even vaguely safe.
That’s clearly not safe either.