Explanation of why a post was a Violation of the ToS

post #410231

Wow! Very interesting that this picture was a "Grotesque" Violation of Terms of Service when there are so many other examples on this site that are fine (like the 3 shown below)! All these futas have ABNORMALLY large, veiny cocks; some have very large balls; all are ejaculating - pretty much the best the extreme futanari fantasy has to offer. The only difference between those and this deleted one was this one had a guy between the futas shooting a smaller stream than the two "girls" - kinda funny! I marked it as Explicit so it would be filtered out by those who are offended. Just curious...

post #407196

post #385681

post #370095

They all suck.

And I LIKE futa, in general.

Also, suck it up, get over yourself, and fuck off.

These should be deleted too.

ToS:
bodies that are far outside the realm of normal human proportion (for example, breasts that are as large as the body).

That'd be the specific part of the ToS those posts violate, although as you point out it's only selectively enforced. A large part of the futanari tag would be deleted if it actually were strictly enforced.

If the first post is to be used as a standard, than all 4 are clear violations of the ToS.

I agree with FeKa, as it's somewhat aggravating how people can always find examples that are worse than theirs.

ronbo1112 said:
All these futas have ABNORMALLY large, veiny cocks; some have very large balls; all are ejaculating - pretty much the best the extreme futanari fantasy has to offer.

You're kind of weird.

note that the real difference between the deleted image and the other images is that the deleted one is poorly drawn

so the moral of the story is post better futa?

Moral of the story is to not post futa.
-- signed by someone who hates futa for their abilities to enjoy the best of both worlds.

shii said:
You're kind of disgusting.

fixed. You can post this garbage when they allow guro to be posted.

any day now.

"pretty much the best the extreme futanari fantasy has to offer"
In other words, you couldn't pay me to approve it.

In my opinion, the first image is not a violation of ToS. But, that artist isn't great and I wouldn't have approved it. The others, well. The second one isn't so great either. The other two I don't have a problem with and possibly would have approved?
I don't care what kind of outlandish sexual content pictures have as long as they look good. But, the picture you're complaining about isn't good.

OK - so it was the quality of the drawing, I guess I can "suck it up" but I don't know why I should "fuck off" for asking the question. Thanks to some of you for being reasonable.