[color=Aqua]Hello There!

I have noticed that some pictures of horses shouldn't be explicit like this one:

post #1038338

post #1000900

With this logic almost every picture of with horses could be considered explicit. Including this one. Which would be quite ridiculous.

I think these pictures should be questionable or safe not explicit because they are clearly doesn't intended to be explicit.

What's your opinion?

Sheaths are rated explicit

I bet it's because their sheaths are showing. Do sheaths count as explicit or not? Edit: Nevermind.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Sheaths are rated explicit

I know on e621 we tag what we see. It's like an algorythm but,
could we make an exceptin for horses? I don't think it's right to consider these pictures explicit becasue they are clearly doesn't intended to be explicit. It's just looks silly in my opinion.

Why make an exception for one single species?

The less exceptions to a rule the better.

Hexdragon said:
I know on e621 we tag what we see. It's like an algorythm but,
could we make an exceptin for horses? I don't think it's right to consider these pictures explicit becasue they are clearly doesn't intended to be explicit. It's just looks silly in my opinion.

non sexual depiction of genitals is still explicit no matter what animal its on. just because people are more used to seeing depictions of certain animal's genitals in non-sexual context doesnt make it any less explicit.

Mutisija said:
non sexual depiction of genitals is still explicit no matter what animal its on. just because people are more used to seeing depictions of certain animal's genitals in non-sexual context doesnt make it any less explicit.

this

I don't understand why sheaths are always regarded as explicit even without any sexual provocative imagery, despite images containg bulge being allowed to be rated as questionable. A quick search shows a number of images of bulges that give a much clearer depiction of a penis than a horse's sheath (post #235068, post #232497, post #633246, post #459310, post #39486).

I know that sheath's are basically foreskin which is a part of the penis and that visible genitalia is supposed to be rated as explicit. Yet, as demonstrated by OP's images, sheaths can do a good job of obscuring genitalia, especially on feral species like horses. If you didn't know anything about equine anatomy, you would probably think the sheath was a just an oddly protruding muscle or flap of skin, unless the image specifically focused on that bit of anatomy. Whereas the images of bulges I linked give a pretty clear visual of a (sometimes erect) penis, barely covered by cloth tight enough to show the ridge of a penis's glans.

Why are these posts allowed to be questionable, while barely visible sheaths are considered explicit?

Would you consider art with a foreskin showing explicit? If the answer is yes then congratulations. The answer is also yes to sheaths.

GDelscribe said:
Would you consider art with a foreskin showing explicit? If the answer is yes then congratulations. The answer is also yes to sheaths.

It depends on how it appears, whether or not it clearly looks like genitalia.

I would not regard non-sexual nudity as explicit, partially because of the sheerly massive amount of classical art / sculpture that employs it, hence "artistic nudity"

The average person is mature enough to notice in real life that a horse has a penis and not immediately think "DATS PERVERSE!!!"

JAKXXX3 said:
I don't understand why sheaths are always regarded as explicit even without any sexual provocative imagery, despite images containg bulge being allowed to be rated as questionable. A quick search shows a number of images of bulges that give a much clearer depiction of a penis than a horse's sheath (post #235068, post #232497, post #633246, post #459310, post #39486).

I know that sheath's are basically foreskin which is a part of the penis and that visible genitalia is supposed to be rated as explicit. Yet, as demonstrated by OP's images, sheaths can do a good job of obscuring genitalia, especially on feral species like horses. If you didn't know anything about equine anatomy, you would probably think the sheath was a just an oddly protruding muscle or flap of skin, unless the image specifically focused on that bit of anatomy. Whereas the images of bulges I linked give a pretty clear visual of a (sometimes erect) penis, barely covered by cloth tight enough to show the ridge of a penis's glans.

Why are these posts allowed to be questionable, while barely visible sheaths are considered explicit?

Before I knew what a sheath was I used to think it was a horses penis.
Anyway While I too think it can be silly that a realistic drawing of a horse is rated explicit it's probably just easier this way Making an exception would just get confusing. Plus what would be the point? Other than it's silly or ridiculous.

FibS said:
I would not regard non-sexual nudity as explicit, partially because of the sheerly massive amount of classical art / sculpture that employs it, hence "artistic nudity"

The average person is mature enough to notice in real life that a horse has a penis and not immediately think "DATS PERVERSE!!!"

One of the official definitions of explicit: "having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted."

Explicit doesn't necessarily mean it gets your rocks off. Its also a measure of how much you can see.

As to tasteful nudes, where the line is on that one is in constant motion and under constant debate. Fewer exceptions to rules is easier...especially when that approach avoids more fuzzy lines.

JAKXXX3 said:
I don't understand why sheaths are always regarded as explicit even without any sexual provocative imagery, despite images containg bulge being allowed to be rated as questionable. A quick search shows a number of images of bulges that give a much clearer depiction of a penis than a horse's sheath (post #235068, post #232497, post #633246, post #459310, post #39486).

I know that sheath's are basically foreskin which is a part of the penis and that visible genitalia is supposed to be rated as explicit. Yet, as demonstrated by OP's images, sheaths can do a good job of obscuring genitalia, especially on feral species like horses. If you didn't know anything about equine anatomy, you would probably think the sheath was a just an oddly protruding muscle or flap of skin, unless the image specifically focused on that bit of anatomy. Whereas the images of bulges I linked give a pretty clear visual of a (sometimes erect) penis, barely covered by cloth tight enough to show the ridge of a penis's glans.

Most of your examples should be explicit, and they are now. Visible genitalia are explicit, no exceptions.
"Hidden" genitalia is an exception and ranges from safe to explicit based on how detailed the depiction is. A featureless bulge through thick material is safe, a slightly more detailed bulge in a speedo is at least questionable, and if looks like a shrink wrapped dildo it's explicit.

JAKXXX3 said:
Why are these posts allowed to be questionable, while barely visible sheaths are considered explicit?

Because the administration can't verify a million uploads to see if they are tagged correctly, so mistakes slip through.