Posts

@Yoshimon1  
But is the image in any way triggering of the suggestive tag?

@Damaged  
I mean, suggestive eating is a tag, so that kinda sets the base rating for pictures like that. Unless it doesn’t, in which case it should be made clear in the tag description.

Makes me wonder about one I’d seen a bit ago.
 
>>1851342 (deleted)
 
Basically, enjoying the heck out of food. I tagged ahegao, safe, someone disagreed and I figured it was just the face itself that triggered the upgrade.

@Background Pony #5187  
Oh boy… for now I’ll just cover the ones I definitely disagree on for brevity:  
>>687920 posing seems to imply sex with viewer (especially first three and Spike).  
>>957069 seems to be implying that Spike’s tail is erotically sensitive (likely a furtherance of the “tailboner” joke).  
>>1112209 posing implies sex.  
>>1280747 “orgasm”.  
>>1433135 implying sex acts.  
>>1487436 posing implies sex.  
>>1488208 posing implies sex.  
>>1552560 nipple outline.  
>>1565316 actual sex (albeit of clams) happening.  
>>1669662 I think those are breasts she’s holding.
 
>>1071203 vaginal secretions.  
>>1133869 strong visual innuendo.  
>>1285404 strong visual innuendo.  
>>1431983 strong visual innuendo.  
>>1524110 text is a bit too descriptive.  
>>1530088 horngasm.  
>>1631688 strong visual innuendo (the sex symbols showing penetration).
 
>>1332069 “sex”.  
>>1577495 innuendo’s a little much.
 
I’d like to further point out these as likely needing further review*:  
>>1487436  
>>1488208
 
>>460856  
>>468174  
>>1060802  
>>1224412  
>>1276559  
>>1403630  

Ahegao faces:  
Tagged Questionable, think it’s Safe  
>>564269  
>>571870 (deleted)  
>>687920  
>>825233  
>>957069  
>>996648  
>>1047395  
>>1112209  
>>1165372  
>>1269674  
>>1278686  
>>1280747  
>>1433135  
>>1487436  
>>1488208  
>>1492119  
>>1552560  
>>1565316  
>>1669662  
>>1700853  
>>1884766  
>>2134139  
>>2200462
 
Tagged Questionable, think it’s Suggestive  
>>79854  
>>495715  
>>460856  
>>468174  
>>431232  
>>361442  
>>299535  
>>293564  
>>260717  
>>200134  
>>566587  
>>595596  
>>619650  
>>633516  
>>650267  
>>664192  
>>708287  
>>776402  
>>792125  
>>990270  
>>1015251  
>>1060802  
>>1063435  
>>1071203  
>>1102640  
>>1133304  
>>1133869  
>>1224412  
>>1276559  
>>1285404  
>>1393337  
>>1403630  
>>1421804  
>>1431983  
>>1458416  
>>1524110  
>>1530088  
>>1542533  
>>1611461  
>>1631688  
>>1669950  
>>1672913  
>>1690355  
>>1713919  
>>1721438  
>>1721440  
>>1730854  
>>1740897  
>>1762745  
>>1774650  
>>1775741  
>>1995550  
>>1996247
 
Weird computer thing (Think it’s safe, but not sure)  
>>736158  
>>736164  
>>736166
 
There’s 800+ Suggestive pics tagged ahegao, so I’m going to go through them separately. I also added some cropped porn to the 2nd category, but not sure if it’s suggestive or questionable.
 
Ahegao  
Tagged Suggestive, think it’s Safe  
>>289375  
>>680140  
>>1332069  
>>1337984  
>>1343533  
>>1343853  
>>1349356  
>>1350342  
>>1577495  
>>1644910  
>>1777887  
>>1820234  
>>1821463  
>>1996559  
>>2020955  
>>2136721  
>>2188615  
>>2195478  
>>2205289  
There were all originally questionable, but changed to suggestive. I think it’s safe though.

@Background Pony #351B  
This is barely even Suggestive, solely on the idea of that we’re seeing a bit much ass and it’s a naked ass. Safe after some deliberation; remember that the way our ratings are structured is based on what we can see, and here we cannot see most of her butt, so even if it’s technically not wrapped in clothing, we aren’t seeing it; same logic as why a person in the bathtub but bubbles cover up their tits and we aren’t seeing through the water is fine at Safe. Things like this and naked aprons at Suggestive would lead to inconsistency, we shouldn’t rate Suggestive for implied nudity.  
Keep in mind, we live in the world where this is TV-Y7:  

 
@Napsack  
You must be looking at a completely different image. She looks bored out of her mind and there’s no way the controller reaches anything.

@Napsack  
That doesn’t match up with the original image though, nor any of the other circumstances.

@Background Pony #351B  
The way Sunset is holding that controller seems to imply masturbation. Then again, it could be a tv remote… hard to tell from this angle.

(Spoilering just in case)  

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

 
Is this really explicit? The artist isn’t the one who tagged it with masturbation, and it was posted on a blue board (which doesn’t allow porn.) It’s based on this:  

@Damaged  
Pretty painted-on, probably more than that.

Spoiling because it may be above the rating listed, and is very NSFW.  

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

 
How painted-on does clothing need to be before it’s considered as explicit as not wearing clothing? This one has some of the vulva’s shading showing through the “latex” bikini bottom (this is a clothed variation on a full naked shot).

@Damaged  
@Princess Luna  
I’d say the second image is suggestive, that top left bit looks awfully sexual in pose, especially with the raised tail.

@Damaged  
There is no amount of butt that is too much, strictly speaking. The first image I think is Safe (it’s just a butt, not being shaken or anything, a crop of a screencap would be much the same), but the second I’m not sure on, with the top left thing.

How much butt is too much butt? Safe/Suggestive?
 
 

@Damaged  
AJ is pretty “excited” over the undressing. I think altogether it’s enough for Suggestive, if just barely.

@Damaged
 
In light of the post just one or two up from yours, Applejack getting all sweaty and blushy about would qualify the underwear talk and plans to undress as “suggestive”.

>>2210378s (deleted)
 
Suggestive or safe? I couldn’t see anything that really pushed this into suggestive.

@Princess Luna  
Alright then. Thanks for the clarification.

@Napsack  
‘Sexualized’ is about how the image itself portrays what’s going on, mainly with how characters act and the way the image is set up. Derpy is acting surprised and perhaps embarrassed, but not the least bit aroused, and there’s nobody else in the image to be aroused, so the only thing sexualizing this would be that we’re on the side to see the split and it happening right at the buttcrack. However, the split is rather small, we’re just getting a sliver of underwear.  
I think it’s a close one, but I’d call it Safe.

Does >>2209915 count as suggestive?
 
She has exposed panties and I would think it falls under sexualized scenarios, at least as far as wardrobe malfunctions and embarrassing exposure/humiliation are concerned.

@Princess Luna  
Okay

@MellowinsomeYellow  
Can your coworker come to work with boobs that big? If not (“all the men would be distracted, you’re fired”, etc.), and you’re in the US, she should sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  
Anyways, nothing sexual is going on and the clothing is fine, and the tits aren’t impossibly large.
 
@MellowinsomeYellow  
Well I think that just zooming in on a perfectly normal show-style butt isn’t a good reason to rate Suggestive, or else ratings become utterly stupid (no rating other than Suggestive is even theorized to work this way, and it would mean an image could be composed of Suggestive pieces to become Safe, which violates the entire concept of how ratings work with composition).

@MellowinsomeYellow  
That’s actually a very odd thing. Forgetting for a moment that it’s a butt that is featureless enough that it could be on the show, the source is a DeviantArt gif that has that ass as the first frame and Nazi art as the second, and is set not to repeat. So that image is technically at the source, but isn’t visible there.

>>1422312 (deleted)  
What about this?

@MellowinsomeYellow  
The line between safe and suggestive is a little blurry sometimes. Here, while they are big breasts, the pose is not particularly sexual and they are covered up. As such, yes, safe.