The butt wiki says that a post with a butt can be safe, but does that mean that nude butts can be safe, or only if they are covered?
post #3535857 is rated safe.

Looks Questionable to me. I changed it.

lance_armstrong said:
Looks Questionable to me. I changed it.

wouldn't that depend on context (agree in this one). Actually if e6 considers all visible genitalia porn even if there's no sexual acts does that mean wildlife photography would be banned for real life pornography if someone can see a deers balls in the background or something?

dzeergy said:
The butt wiki says that a post with a butt can be safe, but does that mean that nude butts can be safe, or only if they are covered?
post #3535857 is rated safe.

The one who rated that safe should be banned. What a horrible human being ^{_{(upsi ._.)}}

soluxx said:
...does that mean wildlife photography would be banned for real life pornography if someone can see a deers balls in the background or something?

I don't think you can compare television to e621

soluxx said:
wouldn't that depend on context (agree in this one). Actually if e6 considers all visible genitalia porn even if there's no sexual acts does that mean wildlife photography would be banned for real life pornography if someone can see a deers balls in the background or something?

You cannot apply irl logic to the specific rulings, this is one of those cases.

If that given example is Q, how about model sheets like this?

post #3607732

It's showing about the same amount of butt, and I'd call neither example provocative.

It's funny that both examples are uploads I did. I was rating all butts questionable, until we had a discussion on the discord, that it is ok to rate not overly sexualized butts as safe.

Given it's not a focus of the pic or showing anything else I think it's fine to be safe rated. Lots of art with butts on here are rated safe. Idk why this is an exception.

I always thought that just the butt crack was automatically questionable.

dubsthefox said:
The one who rated that safe should be banned. What a horrible human being ^{_{(upsi ._.)}}

I don't think you can compare television to e621

demesejha said:
You cannot apply irl logic to the specific rulings, this is one of those cases.

I mean banned on this site, given we have a "no real life pornography" rule. As in if e6 consider genitals = porn then if someone uploads normal wild life photography here will it get banned for "real life porn" if someone can see a male animals testicles or something?

edit: Ah checked rules that explains it

Irrelevant photographs: Any photograph that isn't of traditional artwork or manipulated to contain furry characters.
Photos of fursuits, statues, plushies, dakimakura, tattoos, graffiti, painted plates, etc. are all irrelevant to us.

No unedited photos. got confused by the existence of "real life" posts like post #3381300 and thought people could possibly upload photos.

faucet said:
If that given example is Q, how about model sheets like this?

post #3607732

It's showing about the same amount of butt, and I'd call neither example provocative.

At least in my opinion, context is very important. A bare butt on a character sheet just shows their character's design without clothes, it's not drawing a lot of attention, and it's not attempting to be provocative.

Two naked characters embracing in a bedroom, with their genitals hidden by their pose, could be suggestive