rating:q sex

rantuyetmai said:
It's time to use some common sense already.

Ah, yes, common sense: that stuff that you and the people who agree with you have, and that people who don't agree with you are lacking.

Seriously, I agree with your assessment that post #449447 is explicit, but the whole point of this thread is to consider possible additions to the rules defining rating:q and rating:e so as to avoid forcing people to rely on their personal concept of common sense. Applied to a more controversial post, your "I knows it when I sees it" argument would have little merit except as an argument starter.

Having considered it a little further, I think that what's making post #449447 explicit for me is a combination of the fluids and the unhidden nipple_tweak. Basically, extending the rating:e definition from "openly [...] portrayed sex" to "openly [...] portrayed sex acts" would ensure that post #449447 is explicit, while posts like post #211918 and post #471627 can remain questionable. Does this seem reasonable to others?

rantuyetmai said:
I just know that explicitly depicted sex scene such as post #449447 is explicit.

I'm not trying to argue that that post shouldn't be rated explicit, but we really do need to decide on why it's explicit. One person's "tasteful erotica" is another's "obscene pornography", and "I just know" isn't exactly a nonobjective guideline. Defining explicitness as "I know it when I see it" just isn't good enough.

Let's try this: have a look at post #211918 - what do you think that should be rated? Does that count as 'tasteful' enough to be considered non-explicit? If not, what specifically is different about it compared to post #174028 that makes it explicit?

Shinjidude said: It got revamped several months ago

Not so much revamped as slightly relaxed; as far as I'm concerned the same principles we've always applies are still by and large in effect. We just try to allow a little more leeway.

Count, I'm hesitant to give you super defined explanations because there aren't any.

I think the current wiki write-up coupled with discussion in the ratings check thread is pretty sufficient. There's not a spate of egregiously misrated posts out there or anything (vandalism and really old posts aside).

CountPacula said:
I'm not trying to argue that that post shouldn't be rated explicit, but we really do need to decide on why it's explicit.

I prefer the "overwhelming evidence visible under close scrutiny" approach.

Since post #449447 is being used so much (and is generally agreed to be Explicit), let's use it as an example here as well.
The elements visible here:

• Both partners are fully nude, in a woman-on-top sexual position
• breast grabbing is occurring
• nipple tweaking is occurring
• Tsumugi is flushed and drooling, and the line of the spittle suggests there is significant up-and-down torso movement occurring, despite the lack of motion lines
• Suspicious fluids are present at the groins of the two.
• Even if it is actually sweat, the other elements in the picture combined leave zero room for interpretation about the reason why that "sweat" is being produced

With all of that evidence in place, it's pretty obviously explicit.

I prefer to assemble a short list of such evidence in each case where it's not immediately obvious what the rating should be; it helps me get a clearer feel of the image, its tone and intent, etc., which sharpens my judgment of the material.