Characters talking about pornography makes the image questionable? I had this doubt when making a post, because there is nothing erotic, but one of the characters says the other needs to stop watching porn. This is a subject that can bother those who open the e926 to see safe fanarts, but it doesn't fit any rating.
Topic: safe or questionable?
Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
Good question. Non-porn pictures that contain in-universe porn are inconsistent in terms of being tagged Safe or Questionable. See: porn -rating:e -breasts -bulge -suggestive -butt
It sounds like your picture might merely reference porn rather than depict it though, but the question still remains.
Text doesn't matter for tagging.
dubsthefox said:
Text doesn't matter for tagging.
People here like saying that, but...
- post #2346350 Surely this should be tagged orgasm_denial?
- post #2979676 Surely vaporeon_copypasta is a valid thing to tag?
- post #1652156 Do we really want to avoid tagging this character as dominant?
Perhaps the policy should be better described as "don't use text to tag gender, things that contradict what's seen in the image, or unseen objects"...
crocogator said:
People here like saying that, but...
It's a general rule of thumb. Yes, there are exceptions, but if text says something like "This is gay sex." and at least one of the characters having sex looks ambiguous, it's not tagged male/male despite the text.
crocogator said:
- post #2346350 Surely this should be tagged orgasm_denial?
No, because there's no indication he's being prevented from orgasming. Even taking the text at face value, it's just telling him to stop, but he's still masturbating and it's not making him stop.
crocogator said:
- post #2979676 Surely vaporeon_copypasta is a valid thing to tag?
In that case yes, since the text itself is a meme reference.
crocogator said:
- post #1652156 Do we really want to avoid tagging this character as dominant?
Yes, because he's not dominating anyone. You can't see who he's supposedly dominating, so you can't say they're actually being dominated, he's just speaking authoritatively. Just like if his anus or butt was pushed right up against the viewer, you wouldn't tag it rimming or face sitting, since you can't see the character being sat on or stimulating his anus. Or a solo character presenting their penis and looking at the viewer isn't imminent_sex.
Updated
crocogator said:
Good question. Non-porn pictures that contain in-universe porn are inconsistent in terms of being tagged Safe or Questionable. See: porn -rating:e -breasts -bulge -suggestive -butt
It sounds like your picture might merely reference porn rather than depict it though, but the question still remains.
I think the best thing to do is to rate it questionable. Safe images are fine for, let’s say, essentially PG-13. Anything more than what you’d share among relatives is questionable, and referring to porn in an image without being able to justify its educational use gets knocked up to there.
vaporeon copypasta
This of course excludes allusions to the weird stuff the internet has to offer. Whole separate topic right there, and the image itself does not refer to porn literally.
watsit said:
Yes, because he's not dominating anyone. You can't see who he's supposedly dominating, so you can't say they're actually being dominated, he's just speaking authoritatively. Just like if his anus or butt was pushed right up against the viewer, you wouldn't tag it rimming or face sitting, since you can't see the character being sat on or stimulating his anus. Or a solo character presenting their penis and looking at the viewer isn't imminent_sex.
Huh. Just made me realise there is a divide between whether tagging should be done conservatively or liberally.
Updated
crocogator said:
People here like saying that, but...
- post #2346350 Surely this should be tagged orgasm_denial?
- post #2979676 Surely vaporeon_copypasta is a valid thing to tag?
- post #1652156 Do we really want to avoid tagging this character as dominant?
Perhaps the policy should be better described as "don't use text to tag gender, things that contradict what's seen in the image, or unseen objects"...
well, if I were one of the admins in a discussion about the tagging rules, I would say that if the image doesn't show something explicit, but it's happening in the context of the image without it being visible and a dialog makes it clear, it should be marked as questionable.
after all, the dialogue makes it obvious what was debatable about the image being safe or not.
peludo said:
well, if I were one of the admins in a discussion about the tagging rules, I would say that if the image doesn't show something explicit, but it's happening in the context of the image without it being visible and a dialog makes it clear, it should be marked as questionable.
after all, the dialogue makes it obvious what was debatable about the image being safe or not.
Agreed, but I wasn't talking about rating. I got off-topic and was talking about tags. To put what past me was trying to say in a better way: a small handful of tags tend to require text because they refer to concepts that can be difficult to depict visually. You know something is an aphrodisiac when it's a pink potion with heart-shaped fumes coming out of it OR if it's just a magical sandwich or something and there's TEXT OR DIALOGUE that says it's an aphrodisiac. You know a character isn't allowed to orgasm (orgasm_denial) if it's an animation loop where the character is bound and repeatedly edged and released before orgasm OR if there's TEXT OR DIALOGUE that says they aren't allowed to orgasm.
crocogator said:
Agreed, but I wasn't talking about rating. I got off-topic and was talking about tags. To put what past me was trying to say in a better way: a small handful of tags tend to require text because they refer to concepts that can be difficult to depict visually. You know something is an aphrodisiac when it's a pink potion with heart-shaped fumes coming out of it OR if it's just a magical sandwich or something and there's TEXT OR DIALOGUE that says it's an aphrodisiac. You know a character isn't allowed to orgasm (orgasm_denial) if it's an animation loop where the character is bound and repeatedly edged and released before orgasm OR if there's TEXT OR DIALOGUE that says they aren't allowed to orgasm.
Both, if you can understand what's going on... or maybe you don't need anything clear, the tags can add to the content, there are images where we don't know if there is consent and we only find out by reading the tags. i.e., as long as the tags tell the truth, it should be valid (unless they generate discussion about its content being present in the image)
dubsthefox said:
Text doesn't matter for tagging.
Dirty_talk is a tag.
And yes, I do see the point in making discussion of adul themes in an image questionable.