Geravind: Я мог бы стать рекою, быть тёмною водой.
Вечно молодой...
Когда ты говоришь "fucking shitty drawings" о таком -- подавив слёзы, хочется свои потуги вообще никогда никому не показывать. (полу-шутка)
Мне, например, с некоторыми моментами рисования тоже очень не хватает онлайн подсказчика-критика. Чтоб, только начинаю косячить, сразу за локоть хватал/по пальцам бил "тут вот так, тут вот так, бестолочь!". А ещё в рисовании тоже проявляется принцип интегральной само-недостаточности: чем больше пробуешь себя в какой-то новой деятельности, тем более ясно видишь ничтожность своего скила в общем масштабе такой деятельности. (...Кто упоротый? Никакой скуумы. =-_-=)
BadReligion: @POMA:
Know that, I feel like dancer without legs, this taking too long and in act of desperation I'm trying to keep mind busy with games, ecstasy stances, or alcohol...
BadReligion: @Geravind: Rajirra wiped out in blood... ... ...I imagined that one... ...and I love it.
@Adroma: Rajirra have ...at least for me lovely temper. :c
@Kewot_Rokar: So we won't get this update?
Tahrey: We've got what are effectively bare breasts and at least a suggestion of bare butt and pubis even if the actual Danger Areas are covered by water, so it's best to be careful as people can be touchy about such things even though you tend to see worse in adverts...
Tahrey: Though I do think the world might be a nicer place if we went Full Bonobo and declassified all the (adult-featuring) Sexytimes media but made any depicting violence strongly age-restricted.
-Uzi_Man-: @Tahrey: to be honest, I find this pic to be far more deserving of a questionable tag, and it doesn't have one: http://www.prequeladventure.com/fanartbooru/post/view/2886
AMKitsune: @POMA: It's basically for anything that's either an edit/heavily inspired recreation of something else. We used to have 2 sepperate tags but there were slight issues with them often being used interchangebly and for the 'wrong reasons', so we merged the tags into one 'cover all' tag that could be used for anything that could be considered a derivative work.
POMA: So where's that "something else" which was a source for edit/of inspiration? I seriously wanna see that as I took everything mostly out of my head.
Tahrey: Also possibly we need a "sketch" and "finished version" / "coloured version" tags or similar, which would clear up the controversy without any of the same confusion that comes with having both "edit" and "knock-off".
Colourising a sketch isn't really an edit anyway, it's completing a WIP. "Edit" is a term I'd reserve for altering an already-finished piece (aka remixing, and "knock off" would be an otherwise original work that's clearly based heavily or entirely on another; a cover version, if you will).
AMKitsune: @Tahrey: We already actually have a sketch tag. Having an additional tag for finished images might be a little overkill though (seeing as most of the images uploaded here are considered 'complete'). Also, you've hit the nail on the head with your definitions there. The knock-off tag should only really apply to images that are based off of/edited from someone else's work. It's not really an edit or recreation if it's simply a continuation of work on a currently ongoing project.
-Uzi_Man-: @Tahrey: Nudity doesn't necessarily determines if a pic is more sexual than other pic. Take a look at Katia's boobs and thighs, she's really showing off quite a lot, especially due to her fatness (no offense to fat people). While this pic just shows Rajirra sideways with no curves or anything: there is no emphasis on her body‘s details
So yep, let's be fair. If you still think this should have a questionable tag, so should the other pic.
Tahrey: @AMKitsune: "Colourised" or similar, then, to differentiate a sketch or B/W original from a later version that's been enhanced with colours?
@-Uzi_Man-: She's not showing off any more than people generally would at the beach or swimming baths. She's clothed (the outlining suggests it's not merely the painted underwear after all), Rajirra isn't. You can't BS your way around the issue to push some anti-chubby agenda.
Sure, you can have sexually suggestive images without clothes being removed, but I think it requires something more than what may be seen in the racier examples of old Looney Tunes shorts. "The Goofy Movie" was on TV yesterday, at like 3pm on a free-to-air channel, and there were scenes in that which were on about the same level. It's not even as much as a typical live action music video.
If there was cameltoe, visible nippleage, feeling up of boob or crotch, wet underwear, unseemly bulges on the male partner's side, etc, then you might have some kind of point. But there isn't. It's a clothed, ostensibly male cartoon cat of ABC1 stature with his arm around a plus-sized female cat wearing what is essentially a brown two-piece swimming costume.
Tahrey: In fact, thanks to where the two characters arms are, and how she's bending over/where the fatrolls are, you can't even really see much of her chest, or where her legs meet.
Seriously dude, give it up. There's nothing explicit or questionable there. At the most, he's a cartoonish creep who's come upon a woman in the midst of swapping outerwear in a clothes shop changing booth, and is about to get a nuclear slap ... with similar slapstick and amount of exposure as may be experienced in an Animaniacs sequence. The guy in the picture might be macking on the gal, but she's bent over and not giving any kind of deliberately "sexy" display at all.
Whereas the subject of this picture is giving us a not-entirely-side-on flash of the full business with no more coverage of the essentials than is afforded by her fur. Arms back, full torso presented inclusive of breasts and crotch. Whilst pulling off a classic "glamour shot" move as often found on softcore playboy-type calendars in mechanics' workshops and parents would be horrified to find on their child's bedroom wall.
In the other pic, the red cat is positioned very close to Katia's back (his crotch is probably rubbing on her butt), his arm has a physical contact with her boobs, and Katia is showing a lot of her body attributes, on which there's emphasis on her thighs, chest and belly, parts that can be considered of sexual nature.
While this picture shows Rajirra with normal body attributes, no emphasis on her "sexual" parts, and even if she's nude, the artist clearly wanted to focus on giving the picture an artistic look rather than a sexy one.
So let's summarize our points. According to you, this pic is questionable because it shows nudity, while the other isn't because there's nothing inherently sexual on it.
And my point is that this picture is not questionable because regardless of nudity, there's no visible emphasis on Rajirra's feminine features, but rather a more artistic one, while in the other picture, even if Katia is clothed, the pic itself has more sexual connotations than this one.
So let's be honest here. If nudity equals sexual (this pic), but sexual does not equal nudity (the other pic), then both pictures should have a questionable tag. It doesn't have to do anything with "anti-chubby agendas". Do you agree?
Which is what you generally have to do in order to stand behind someone with your arms around them.
(his crotch is probably ....)
There's nothing at all in that picture to suggest that, whether or not it's happening is entirely down to your own imagination. If when you see someone giving another person a light hug from behind your thoughts go immediately to frottage, that's neither our fault nor that of the artist.
Would you think the same way about this photograph, for example?
his arm has a physical contact with her boobs
Bullshit. His left forearm crooks around her left collar and his wrist is at her right upper arm. There might be a little bit of forearm skin to upper decolletage contact as a result if that bikini top has a downright amazing push-up effect, but I defy you to achieve that very easily in real life. Or to find anyone who finds it offensive to either look at or experience directly.
Again, if you think that's bad you must be having spasms at that photo I linked. Or any of the literally thousands of similar ones I could pick from that appear (mostly in squeaky-clean stock photo libraries) when searching for "hug from behind".
I've hugged my mother that way whilst on a beach holiday, almost certainly (though without the laconic pose and chat-up line). Does that need I need to go see a therapist for Oedopal issues? Mmmmmmnaaaah. Come on. Return to planet earth for a second.
There's no hand-to-boob contact or anything like that.
Would it make any difference if she was wearing a ballgown with a plunging neckline and the red cat was in a formal suit? Or they were both wearing jeans and T-shirts with deep V-necks? But with no change to the poses otherwise?
Katia is showing a lot of her body attributes
Yeah, she's in beachwear, it tends to do that. I'd suggest staying away from the summer clothing collection catalogues put out by the fashionable stores in your local mall, else you're going to burst a blood vessel.
Oh look here's a google image search for "bikini + chubby", be careful about clicking that you might see some skin.
thighs, chest and belly, parts that can be considered of sexual nature
...holy shit, dude, really? Can you tell me what date is on your calendar at the moment? Does the year start with a 1? What's the third number in it?
normal body attributes
So we're body shaming today, yeah? That's what we're doing. Marking pictures questionable because the subject doesn't comply with your own personal concept of beauty. Right. Good.
no emphasis on her "sexual" parts
Well, that's as maybe, but seeing as you consider legs, stomach, and parts of the upper torso other than the breasts themselves "sexual", it's hard to know whether to agree or dispute that.
However the areas that are more commonly thought of as being sexually explicit are either on full display or leave very little to all but the most active of imaginations (for example, your own). Like I said before, this is a common and indeed oft-parodied glamour-shoot pose (see: Playboy magazine, Pirelli calendars), and even then the pneumatically blessed subject tends to have *something* on. But you still wouldn't consider putting the clothed version as your desktop background in a polite environment even as a joke, as its main intent is titillation and capture of the gynaephilic gaze, whereas you may be able to pass off this picture for the humour of it (...once you've explained the background of the setting and what a sweetroll is, anyway).
Fur or otherwise, Rajirra is unclothed here, and providing us with some kind of frontal view. You wouldn't get license to show it on TV during periods where children might be watching other than maybe in the context of some kind of educational arts programme that's dealing specifically in that type of subject matter. A cartoonish image of an overly romantic cat sidling up on another that, by some standard may be considered quite attractive (oh hey, Reubens), and making a somewhat too familiar and not entirely welcome advance? Er, I think we may have seen that before, with a slight tweak to the species involved:
...and multiple variations upon down the years, in terms of character, species, build, amount of clothing, etc...
(You can get away with cartoon animals being undressed when their coats are thick enough and their body features vaguely defined enough that it essentially *is* clothing)
tl;dr functional nudity and deliberately titillating pose trumps being decent enough to not offend most people's grandmothers and all the danger zones being hidden anyway. Slouching over forwards in surprised withdrawal from an unwanted paramour, with your nips 'n' bits hidden from view isn't exactly the most popular pose in porn, soft or otherwise.
the artist [was being] artistic rather than sexy
You can have both, you know. My own contrasting opinion here is that they were trying for artistic and sexy.
(And might I say, they achieved their goals)
One doesn't preclude the other, and precluding one doesn't then invoke the other.
But I think we realised quite a while ago that we're working in the realm of Insane Troll Logic, so I don't expect that idea to carry much weight here.
no visible emphasis on Rajirra's feminine features
AreYouFuckingKiddingMe.jpg
Right, so, long hair being flicked backwards, stereotypical glamour pose including a strangely ecstatic expression, bare breasts, most of a flat crotch, pronounced hips, hourglass figure, petite shoulder shape, femme facial features (at least as much as you can point to in an anthropomorphic feline), nicely toned stomach... slender fingers and well defined collar, even. But no, as she's of average weight, isn't wearing underwear (or indeed anything at all), and hasn't had her gender-specific fat deposition exaggerated in a prehistoric-fertility-doll caricature fashion, we're not showing off or focussing any attention on her feminine features. This picture is ALL about the fur texture, the species-specific tuft of chest hair, and how the seawater is spraying through the air.
Gimme strength.
according to you, this pic is questionable because it shows nudity
Not so much me, but more like "everyone else but". As in, that's more the generally held standard. If someone's got their clothes off and you can see the parts that would normally be concealed, then it gets a NSFW warning, because some people are picky about that stuff, in a way they tend not to be when it comes to the general body shape of someone who isn't in the buff.
And this still applies whether or not it's "arty". Artistic porn is still porn. You'd be frowned at and possibly disciplined for hanging up reproductions of classical nude paintings around a primary school classroom, even though in a different context those same images count as tourist attractions. The medium in which it's conveyed doesn't change the audience rating. Legend Of The Overfiend being drawn in a decidedly toony style didn't save it from an 18 rating when it was released on video. Neither did the sumptuous arthouse stylings of Betty Blue. You can't make an argument for it escaping the "questionable" tag just because of what brushes the artist used in photoshop or how much effort they put in.
Personally, I'm not at all bothered what I'm looking at, but I am sometimes bothered what other people might see me looking at, intentionally or otherwise.
Is this genuinely an unfamiliar concept to you, or are you just shit-stirring? If the former, where do you live? Depending on the answer it might be interesting to come conduct an anthropological study.
the other isn't because there's nothing inherently sexual about it
I didn't say that. There is a slight suggestiveness. But there's nothing explicit, it's at the level of mild innuendo at best. The yellow cat is minimally clothed, but still clothed. The red cat is hitting on her, but in such a mild and cheesy way that a child might laugh at it and think it lame. There's no nudity, no sexual language, no definite touching of any areas other than neck and arm.
I really can't figure out what you're complaining about other than possibly you have a dislike of cartoon characters shaped like fertility dolls, and you're jealous that the red cat might have a vague non-zero chance of getting some, which is still far better than your own.
Also, sure, you may be able to get away with certain nude images without the tag, and enough non-nude ones that are highly suggestive, explicit, or otherwise rude and unsuitable for mixed company may still get tagged, but that doesn't work here, because each one is far enough inside or outside of the boundary line for there not to be any uncertainty over it. Hence why the mods tagged them that way.
...
or we can simply leave them as they are
Yeah, that seems like a good idea. Given that you're the one who was stirring it in the first place, I thank you for your reconsideration, but still note that all this was kinda needless.
they aren't a big deal
literally it's a tag on the sidebar, and a little overlay on the thumbnail. it doesn't restrict access or anything like that, it just allows people to decide what they do or don't look at based on a general idea of what might potentially get them in trouble in a workplace, overbearing family environment, or at school...
why did it twist your buttons so hard, and in such a strange way?
-Uzi_Man-: @Tahrey: You wrote a lot of vague / pointless text, so I'm only going to highlight your main points.
There's nothing at all in that picture to suggest that, whether or not it's happening is entirely down to your own imagination.
They are very close to each other. It's impossible for their bodies to not have physical contact other than their arms. Just look at the size of Katia's butt and how close the red cat's front is to her back. Unless the pic has bad proportions, the only logical conclusion is that his crotch is, indeed, rubbing on her butt.
Your photo example doesn't work, because the woman is completely clothed. If she was in a bikini (which in addition doesn't cover much more than her private parts), then it would be questionable.
Bullshit. His left forearm crooks around her left collar and his wrist is at her right upper arm.
There is still physical contact. It wouldn't be a big deal if Katia had clothes that cover up her chest, but she doesn't.
holy shit, dude, really? Can you tell me what date is on your calendar at the moment? Does the year start with a 1? What's the third number in it?
What are you even trying to say? That what's sexual or not is only determined by culture, which can change with the pass of time? Because you'd be wrong if you thought that: even if culture affects our sexual views / preferences, our human biology also makes us naturally sexually attracted to some things more than others. A woman with a big chest, thighs and overall body thickness are naturally attractive to most men. Taking this in consideration, you can establish an "objective" way to measure how sexual a picture is. If you want to doubt this, you're just being delusional.
Hence the use of "normal". Is there emphasis on the size of Rajirra's chest, thighs and belly (or overall thickness) on this pic? No, they're average. Is there emphasis on Katia's on the other pic? Yup.
My own contrasting opinion here is that they were trying for artistic and sexy.
I never said that they couldn't be both, I only stated that the artist of this pic wanted to focus on giving this pic an artistic vibe rather than a sexual one, unlike the other pic. It can have both, but one can be more present than the other.
Right, so, long hair being flicked backwards, stereotypical glamour pose including a strangely ecstatic expression, bare breasts, most of a flat crotch, pronounced hips, hourglass figure, petite shoulder shape, femme facial features (at least as much as you can point to in an anthropomorphic feline), nicely toned stomach... slender fingers and well defined collar, even. But no, as she's of average weight, isn't wearing underwear (or indeed anything at all), and hasn't had her gender-specific fat deposition exaggerated in a prehistoric-fertility-doll caricature fashion, we're not showing off or focussing any attention on her feminine features.
There is no emphasis in any of those things, though. They're all average-sized. What there is emphasis on is in trying to show Rajirra's feminity as a whole, but there's no particular focus on any of her body parts, unlike the other pic.
If someone's got their clothes off and you can see the parts that would normally be concealed, then it gets a NSFW warning
By that logic, this picture should have a questionable tag as well, as it shows Katia naked. http://www.prequeladventure.com/fanartbooru/post/view/999#search=tutorial. Do you see anyone who cares about it?
Also, sure, you may be able to get away with certain nude images without the tag, and enough non-nude ones that are highly suggestive, explicit, or otherwise rude and unsuitable for mixed company may still get tagged, but that doesn't work here, because each one is far enough inside or outside of the boundary line for there not to be any uncertainty over it. Hence why the mods tagged them that way.
To tag both pictures as "questionable" would be exaggerated. This one because there is nothing inherently "rude" on it: it's something you see in a french commercial, and even then it's pretty soft compared to what they often produce. The other pic because the sexual innuendos are just details. Hence why I'm proposing to leave them both untagged.
Man, you really need to calm down and stop using derogatory sarcasm. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, nor it adds strength to your arguments. The only reason I can think of why you're taking such an aggressive stance is that you have weight problems and my remarks make you feel attacked.
Grape: At the end of the day a questionable tag doesn't really change much, just if it has an overlay or not. That being said, this image doesn't contain anything necessarily sexual in nature, being neither revealing nor provocative. No worse than painted underwear. On that basis, it's staying unquestionable, and the tags are being locked.
bluedraggy: And this is why I swear I will never again be a moderator of anything! I wish you all much luck in your hopeless quest to define edge cases. But be aware that hopeless quest is hopeless.
Grape: The painted underwear is at least *something* (for one thing, putting paint on thin-ish fur has a rather more concealing effect on what lies beneath than either the fur itself, or doing similar on bare skin; and IRL at least, animal fur tends to be thinner around these, ah, problem areas).
As per the self-arrived conclusion in my post in on the Civil War pic, painted underwear is shown uncensored in the comic, but nudity not concealed by such efforts is pixelated out for all three of smooth-skinned (Orc ... & human?), scaly-skinned (Argonian) and furry (Khajiit) characters, so in Prequel context at least it would seem that nudity = "explicit", painted undies on furry character = "not explicit" (with paint on skin or scale being as yet undefined). Even if it was done, as is most likely, either for comedy purposes or to comply with MSPAF rules, it still makes for a consistent rendering if we follow that.
Oh, and the argument may seem petty and all, but a line has to be drawn *somewhere* for clarity in future cases. And I may not have been quite so mind-boggled if the argument was either "they're both explicit!" (ok, a bit extreme, but maybe you come from a culture where undressing to/beyond the point where your knees and elbows are visible is considered unseemly), or "both are clean" (arguable given the fur and lack of nips/clefts, though errs on the side of fail-deadly rather than fail-safe from the censure-vulnerable user's perspective). The crazy-ass thing from where I'm standing was trying to claim that the clean/explicit classification needed to be reversed such that Pepe Le Pew got an NC17, but a front-lit, effectively-naked version of this:
...gets a U.
(note, artist could have given her a painted or fabric (or chainmail) bikini, but didn't)
FWIW I could probably have found the classic pin-up version of that which is what I have in my mind's eye, to put behind a NSFW'd link, but the problem is that I am myself at a workplace PC (it's a quiet week...) and adding even the mildest of suggestive terms as a modifier to what was needed to produce that pic results in just ALL OF THE PORN. Which I'd skim through for the desired pic with no issues at home, but it's rather too obvious even in thumbnail form on your monitor in an open plan office and forces a rapid, instinctive Ctrl+F4.
Tahrey: Also, my own weight is not the issue here; in the interest of disclosure, I'm one category above "normal/healthy" and recognise I need to lose a few pounds, but have no self image issues over it as neither am I dragging around an enormous spare tyre. My family background on both sides tends towards the heavy-set even amongst the lean-going-on-anorexic members, so the BMI is a touch biased, and compared to three particular close relatives (one each from my generation and the two preceding gens, the oldest of whom being long deceased) I'm a goddamn featherweight.
But we were discussing the images, and the only thing I could positively identify as a complaint that would stand up to the most rudimentary scrutiny was that Katia was kinda well-funded in the booty department on the cartoonish pic. Which itself seemed to have had some kind of heated discussion over People's Firmly-Held Opinions Over Whether They Should Be Allowed To Freely Click On Images Depicting Overweight Characters And Look At Them Long Enough To Become Disgusted By It... whose participants are unknown to me because the moderators deleted it all. But I do have a sneaking suspicion that at least one of the contributors to this particular thread may have been involved...
Seriously, it's the interweb, if you don't like the picture, add the tag to a blocklist (if we have that system here), or just close the tab / hit back / shut your eyes, stumble out into the street and pay the nearest person who'll accept your money to go into your house and destroy your computer.
Describe This Image As Dramatically As Possible
- Reply
- Reply
Вечно молодой...
Когда ты говоришь "fucking shitty drawings" о таком -- подавив слёзы, хочется свои потуги вообще никогда никому не показывать. (полу-шутка)
Мне, например, с некоторыми моментами рисования тоже очень не хватает онлайн подсказчика-критика. Чтоб, только начинаю косячить, сразу за локоть хватал/по пальцам бил "тут вот так, тут вот так, бестолочь!". А ещё в рисовании тоже проявляется принцип интегральной само-недостаточности: чем больше пробуешь себя в какой-то новой деятельности, тем более ясно видишь ничтожность своего скила в общем масштабе такой деятельности. (...Кто упоротый? Никакой скуумы. =-_-=)
Sorry, God save Google Translate.
Know that, I feel like dancer without legs, this taking too long and in act of desperation I'm trying to keep mind busy with games, ecstasy stances, or alcohol...
- Reply
- Reply
@Vidiotdragon: FFS why did I forget Chrome could do that, for so long. I've been copying and pasting all the cyrillic into the GTrans webpage o_O
All the same, I think the only good response I can make here is
@Geravind: Come quick! Bring a concierge! My hovercraft is full of eels!
- Reply
@POMA: FUCKWATER ... is that some kind of new energy drink that contains a potent aphrodisiac? Or just a trendy brand of lube?
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
@Adroma: Rajirra have ...at least for me lovely temper. :c
@Kewot_Rokar: So we won't get this update?
- Reply
- Reply
fight me
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
А мне эта кися дико нравится... няха такая! :3
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
Thing is, no nudity in that one, so you're gonna have to explain your reasoning quite comprehensively. Is it just a No Fat Chicks policy?
- Reply
Colourising a sketch isn't really an edit anyway, it's completing a WIP. "Edit" is a term I'd reserve for altering an already-finished piece (aka remixing, and "knock off" would be an otherwise original work that's clearly based heavily or entirely on another; a cover version, if you will).
- Reply
So yep, let's be fair. If you still think this should have a questionable tag, so should the other pic.
- Reply
@-Uzi_Man-: She's not showing off any more than people generally would at the beach or swimming baths. She's clothed (the outlining suggests it's not merely the painted underwear after all), Rajirra isn't. You can't BS your way around the issue to push some anti-chubby agenda.
Sure, you can have sexually suggestive images without clothes being removed, but I think it requires something more than what may be seen in the racier examples of old Looney Tunes shorts. "The Goofy Movie" was on TV yesterday, at like 3pm on a free-to-air channel, and there were scenes in that which were on about the same level. It's not even as much as a typical live action music video.
If there was cameltoe, visible nippleage, feeling up of boob or crotch, wet underwear, unseemly bulges on the male partner's side, etc, then you might have some kind of point. But there isn't. It's a clothed, ostensibly male cartoon cat of ABC1 stature with his arm around a plus-sized female cat wearing what is essentially a brown two-piece swimming costume.
- Reply
Seriously dude, give it up. There's nothing explicit or questionable there. At the most, he's a cartoonish creep who's come upon a woman in the midst of swapping outerwear in a clothes shop changing booth, and is about to get a nuclear slap ... with similar slapstick and amount of exposure as may be experienced in an Animaniacs sequence. The guy in the picture might be macking on the gal, but she's bent over and not giving any kind of deliberately "sexy" display at all.
Whereas the subject of this picture is giving us a not-entirely-side-on flash of the full business with no more coverage of the essentials than is afforded by her fur. Arms back, full torso presented inclusive of breasts and crotch. Whilst pulling off a classic "glamour shot" move as often found on softcore playboy-type calendars in mechanics' workshops and parents would be horrified to find on their child's bedroom wall.
In the other pic, the red cat is positioned very close to Katia's back (his crotch is probably rubbing on her butt), his arm has a physical contact with her boobs, and Katia is showing a lot of her body attributes, on which there's emphasis on her thighs, chest and belly, parts that can be considered of sexual nature.
While this picture shows Rajirra with normal body attributes, no emphasis on her "sexual" parts, and even if she's nude, the artist clearly wanted to focus on giving the picture an artistic look rather than a sexy one.
So let's summarize our points. According to you, this pic is questionable because it shows nudity, while the other isn't because there's nothing inherently sexual on it.
And my point is that this picture is not questionable because regardless of nudity, there's no visible emphasis on Rajirra's feminine features, but rather a more artistic one, while in the other picture, even if Katia is clothed, the pic itself has more sexual connotations than this one.
So let's be honest here. If nudity equals sexual (this pic), but sexual does not equal nudity (the other pic), then both pictures should have a questionable tag. It doesn't have to do anything with "anti-chubby agendas". Do you agree?
- Reply
Which is what you generally have to do in order to stand behind someone with your arms around them.
There's nothing at all in that picture to suggest that, whether or not it's happening is entirely down to your own imagination. If when you see someone giving another person a light hug from behind your thoughts go immediately to frottage, that's neither our fault nor that of the artist.
Would you think the same way about this photograph, for example?
Bullshit. His left forearm crooks around her left collar and his wrist is at her right upper arm. There might be a little bit of forearm skin to upper decolletage contact as a result if that bikini top has a downright amazing push-up effect, but I defy you to achieve that very easily in real life. Or to find anyone who finds it offensive to either look at or experience directly.
Again, if you think that's bad you must be having spasms at that photo I linked. Or any of the literally thousands of similar ones I could pick from that appear (mostly in squeaky-clean stock photo libraries) when searching for "hug from behind".
I've hugged my mother that way whilst on a beach holiday, almost certainly (though without the laconic pose and chat-up line). Does that need I need to go see a therapist for Oedopal issues? Mmmmmmnaaaah. Come on. Return to planet earth for a second.
There's no hand-to-boob contact or anything like that.
Would it make any difference if she was wearing a ballgown with a plunging neckline and the red cat was in a formal suit? Or they were both wearing jeans and T-shirts with deep V-necks? But with no change to the poses otherwise?
Yeah, she's in beachwear, it tends to do that. I'd suggest staying away from the summer clothing collection catalogues put out by the fashionable stores in your local mall, else you're going to burst a blood vessel.
Oh look here's a google image search for "bikini + chubby", be careful about clicking that you might see some skin.
...holy shit, dude, really? Can you tell me what date is on your calendar at the moment? Does the year start with a 1? What's the third number in it?
So we're body shaming today, yeah? That's what we're doing. Marking pictures questionable because the subject doesn't comply with your own personal concept of beauty. Right. Good.
Well, that's as maybe, but seeing as you consider legs, stomach, and parts of the upper torso other than the breasts themselves "sexual", it's hard to know whether to agree or dispute that.
However the areas that are more commonly thought of as being sexually explicit are either on full display or leave very little to all but the most active of imaginations (for example, your own). Like I said before, this is a common and indeed oft-parodied glamour-shoot pose (see: Playboy magazine, Pirelli calendars), and even then the pneumatically blessed subject tends to have *something* on. But you still wouldn't consider putting the clothed version as your desktop background in a polite environment even as a joke, as its main intent is titillation and capture of the gynaephilic gaze, whereas you may be able to pass off this picture for the humour of it (...once you've explained the background of the setting and what a sweetroll is, anyway).
Fur or otherwise, Rajirra is unclothed here, and providing us with some kind of frontal view. You wouldn't get license to show it on TV during periods where children might be watching other than maybe in the context of some kind of educational arts programme that's dealing specifically in that type of subject matter. A cartoonish image of an overly romantic cat sidling up on another that, by some standard may be considered quite attractive (oh hey, Reubens), and making a somewhat too familiar and not entirely welcome advance? Er, I think we may have seen that before, with a slight tweak to the species involved:
...and multiple variations upon down the years, in terms of character, species, build, amount of clothing, etc...
(You can get away with cartoon animals being undressed when their coats are thick enough and their body features vaguely defined enough that it essentially *is* clothing)
tl;dr functional nudity and deliberately titillating pose trumps being decent enough to not offend most people's grandmothers and all the danger zones being hidden anyway. Slouching over forwards in surprised withdrawal from an unwanted paramour, with your nips 'n' bits hidden from view isn't exactly the most popular pose in porn, soft or otherwise.
You can have both, you know. My own contrasting opinion here is that they were trying for artistic and sexy.
(And might I say, they achieved their goals)
One doesn't preclude the other, and precluding one doesn't then invoke the other.
But I think we realised quite a while ago that we're working in the realm of Insane Troll Logic, so I don't expect that idea to carry much weight here.
- Reply
AreYouFuckingKiddingMe.jpg
Right, so, long hair being flicked backwards, stereotypical glamour pose including a strangely ecstatic expression, bare breasts, most of a flat crotch, pronounced hips, hourglass figure, petite shoulder shape, femme facial features (at least as much as you can point to in an anthropomorphic feline), nicely toned stomach... slender fingers and well defined collar, even. But no, as she's of average weight, isn't wearing underwear (or indeed anything at all), and hasn't had her gender-specific fat deposition exaggerated in a prehistoric-fertility-doll caricature fashion, we're not showing off or focussing any attention on her feminine features. This picture is ALL about the fur texture, the species-specific tuft of chest hair, and how the seawater is spraying through the air.
Gimme strength.
Not so much me, but more like "everyone else but". As in, that's more the generally held standard. If someone's got their clothes off and you can see the parts that would normally be concealed, then it gets a NSFW warning, because some people are picky about that stuff, in a way they tend not to be when it comes to the general body shape of someone who isn't in the buff.
And this still applies whether or not it's "arty". Artistic porn is still porn. You'd be frowned at and possibly disciplined for hanging up reproductions of classical nude paintings around a primary school classroom, even though in a different context those same images count as tourist attractions. The medium in which it's conveyed doesn't change the audience rating. Legend Of The Overfiend being drawn in a decidedly toony style didn't save it from an 18 rating when it was released on video. Neither did the sumptuous arthouse stylings of Betty Blue. You can't make an argument for it escaping the "questionable" tag just because of what brushes the artist used in photoshop or how much effort they put in.
Personally, I'm not at all bothered what I'm looking at, but I am sometimes bothered what other people might see me looking at, intentionally or otherwise.
Is this genuinely an unfamiliar concept to you, or are you just shit-stirring? If the former, where do you live? Depending on the answer it might be interesting to come conduct an anthropological study.
I didn't say that. There is a slight suggestiveness. But there's nothing explicit, it's at the level of mild innuendo at best. The yellow cat is minimally clothed, but still clothed. The red cat is hitting on her, but in such a mild and cheesy way that a child might laugh at it and think it lame. There's no nudity, no sexual language, no definite touching of any areas other than neck and arm.
I really can't figure out what you're complaining about other than possibly you have a dislike of cartoon characters shaped like fertility dolls, and you're jealous that the red cat might have a vague non-zero chance of getting some, which is still far better than your own.
Also, sure, you may be able to get away with certain nude images without the tag, and enough non-nude ones that are highly suggestive, explicit, or otherwise rude and unsuitable for mixed company may still get tagged, but that doesn't work here, because each one is far enough inside or outside of the boundary line for there not to be any uncertainty over it. Hence why the mods tagged them that way.
...
Yeah, that seems like a good idea. Given that you're the one who was stirring it in the first place, I thank you for your reconsideration, but still note that all this was kinda needless.
literally it's a tag on the sidebar, and a little overlay on the thumbnail. it doesn't restrict access or anything like that, it just allows people to decide what they do or don't look at based on a general idea of what might potentially get them in trouble in a workplace, overbearing family environment, or at school...
why did it twist your buttons so hard, and in such a strange way?
They are very close to each other. It's impossible for their bodies to not have physical contact other than their arms. Just look at the size of Katia's butt and how close the red cat's front is to her back. Unless the pic has bad proportions, the only logical conclusion is that his crotch is, indeed, rubbing on her butt.
Your photo example doesn't work, because the woman is completely clothed. If she was in a bikini (which in addition doesn't cover much more than her private parts), then it would be questionable.
There is still physical contact. It wouldn't be a big deal if Katia had clothes that cover up her chest, but she doesn't.
What are you even trying to say? That what's sexual or not is only determined by culture, which can change with the pass of time? Because you'd be wrong if you thought that: even if culture affects our sexual views / preferences, our human biology also makes us naturally sexually attracted to some things more than others. A woman with a big chest, thighs and overall body thickness are naturally attractive to most men. Taking this in consideration, you can establish an "objective" way to measure how sexual a picture is. If you want to doubt this, you're just being delusional.
Hence the use of "normal". Is there emphasis on the size of Rajirra's chest, thighs and belly (or overall thickness) on this pic? No, they're average. Is there emphasis on Katia's on the other pic? Yup.
I never said that they couldn't be both, I only stated that the artist of this pic wanted to focus on giving this pic an artistic vibe rather than a sexual one, unlike the other pic. It can have both, but one can be more present than the other.
There is no emphasis in any of those things, though. They're all average-sized. What there is emphasis on is in trying to show Rajirra's feminity as a whole, but there's no particular focus on any of her body parts, unlike the other pic.
By that logic, this picture should have a questionable tag as well, as it shows Katia naked. http://www.prequeladventure.com/fanartbooru/post/view/999#search=tutorial. Do you see anyone who cares about it?
To tag both pictures as "questionable" would be exaggerated. This one because there is nothing inherently "rude" on it: it's something you see in a french commercial, and even then it's pretty soft compared to what they often produce. The other pic because the sexual innuendos are just details. Hence why I'm proposing to leave them both untagged.
Man, you really need to calm down and stop using derogatory sarcasm. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion, nor it adds strength to your arguments. The only reason I can think of why you're taking such an aggressive stance is that you have weight problems and my remarks make you feel attacked.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
That's it, I'm totally done feeding the troll. Whatever, dude. You win. Enjoy your hollow internet victory.
- Reply
Grape: The painted underwear is at least *something* (for one thing, putting paint on thin-ish fur has a rather more concealing effect on what lies beneath than either the fur itself, or doing similar on bare skin; and IRL at least, animal fur tends to be thinner around these, ah, problem areas).
As per the self-arrived conclusion in my post in on the Civil War pic, painted underwear is shown uncensored in the comic, but nudity not concealed by such efforts is pixelated out for all three of smooth-skinned (Orc ... & human?), scaly-skinned (Argonian) and furry (Khajiit) characters, so in Prequel context at least it would seem that nudity = "explicit", painted undies on furry character = "not explicit" (with paint on skin or scale being as yet undefined). Even if it was done, as is most likely, either for comedy purposes or to comply with MSPAF rules, it still makes for a consistent rendering if we follow that.
Oh, and the argument may seem petty and all, but a line has to be drawn *somewhere* for clarity in future cases. And I may not have been quite so mind-boggled if the argument was either "they're both explicit!" (ok, a bit extreme, but maybe you come from a culture where undressing to/beyond the point where your knees and elbows are visible is considered unseemly), or "both are clean" (arguable given the fur and lack of nips/clefts, though errs on the side of fail-deadly rather than fail-safe from the censure-vulnerable user's perspective). The crazy-ass thing from where I'm standing was trying to claim that the clean/explicit classification needed to be reversed such that Pepe Le Pew got an NC17, but a front-lit, effectively-naked version of this:
...gets a U.
(note, artist could have given her a painted or fabric (or chainmail) bikini, but didn't)
FWIW I could probably have found the classic pin-up version of that which is what I have in my mind's eye, to put behind a NSFW'd link, but the problem is that I am myself at a workplace PC (it's a quiet week...) and adding even the mildest of suggestive terms as a modifier to what was needed to produce that pic results in just ALL OF THE PORN. Which I'd skim through for the desired pic with no issues at home, but it's rather too obvious even in thumbnail form on your monitor in an open plan office and forces a rapid, instinctive Ctrl+F4.
- Reply
But we were discussing the images, and the only thing I could positively identify as a complaint that would stand up to the most rudimentary scrutiny was that Katia was kinda well-funded in the booty department on the cartoonish pic. Which itself seemed to have had some kind of heated discussion over People's Firmly-Held Opinions Over Whether They Should Be Allowed To Freely Click On Images Depicting Overweight Characters And Look At Them Long Enough To Become Disgusted By It... whose participants are unknown to me because the moderators deleted it all. But I do have a sneaking suspicion that at least one of the contributors to this particular thread may have been involved...
Seriously, it's the interweb, if you don't like the picture, add the tag to a blocklist (if we have that system here), or just close the tab / hit back / shut your eyes, stumble out into the street and pay the nearest person who'll accept your money to go into your house and destroy your computer.
- Reply
- Reply