also, cropcon? that is like the stupidest tag ever! doesn’t anybody realize that con means consensual? consensually cropped? wtf? how about cropclop, or cropped sex, or (call me crazy but) cropped, implied sex? and I thought the implied sex tag was bad, but cropcon? jezus jimminy cricket. half the pictures aren’t even cropping out the sex!
what I mean is, yes I’ll mistag it, because it’s required to do so, not because I “” the “purpose” of doing so is to save the children. telling me what my purpose is, is trying to force me to it even when not required. you can save the children if you like, but don’t drag me into it. I do what’s required, and beyond that I’m free to not give a fuck.
“…so you probably shouldn’t speak as if the target demographic of this particular genre is an objective truth…”
Yeah, alright. I’ll give you that. Although the MLP franchise was initially marketed toward a particular demographic, this current generation has arguably broken out of that mold, and doesn’t necessarily follow the same pattern.
Though, even then, it isn’t like adult fans would never have a reason to want to avoid explicit or possibly suggestive pieces of art… I mean if they were at work, browsing Derpibooru, then that sort of thing might get them in trouble… Though I guess that leaves a horribly ambiguous standard to measure up to.
“invisible blowjob … eat fresh”
That really seems like a stretch. I mean if we think that way, then all images could be filled with invisible dicks secretly coating everything in invisible cum.
“I disagree that derpibooru s should be required to…”
Yeah. But what can we do? So say the mods/s, so say we all.
@Background Pony who downgraded this to “Questionable”
Also, bumped back up to explicit, because again, Implied Sex -> Explicit.
you’re free to see it any way you like. I agree that implied anything is murky, and my own best guess as to what could possibly be termed “implied sex” still isn’t a very good one. that’s why I don’t like the tag. and as for that wonderblots picture
>invisible blowjob
>eat fresh
I disagree that derpibooru s should be required to mistag images or tag images with misleading or incorrect, or poorly defined tags, in order to play moral police for a bunch of parents who can’t be assed to raise their kids right. that is not the purpose of these tags.
I also want to point out that hasbro doesn’t publish their private marketing data, such as what their target demographic, or demographics are. so you probably shouldn’t speak as if the target demographic of this particular genre is an objective truth and not just like, your opinion man.
@redweasel
I get the feeling that this is sort of perilous to debate… but here goes…
I always thought “implied sex” meant exactly what it sounded like: Some part of the image implied that sex was occurring/had occurred, but the image itself didn’t show that happening. The part that does the implying doesn’t need to be visual. I mean if there was an image of a pony reading an explicit age from a book (such that the text was visible in the image), that would clearly still be pornographic (at least in my opinion), or at least not safe for work/the target demographic.
“…you would have to tag every image of a pony gasping as explicit.”
But with that said, it is true that “implied” is a very murky term… I mean, I could edit the original image to show explicitly that nothing pornographic was occurring (i.e. add in a featureless crotch), while leaving Apple Bloom’s orgasmic expression in. And that wouldn’t be explicit… And if we contrived that as the context of this crop-edit, then would it be implying anything? Not really…
But that’s a bit much.
We have to the purpose of these tags is so that a someone from the target demographic doesn’t stumble on something implying/involving something inappropriate for their age. Or so someone browsing at work won’t accidentally /view something that could get them fired.
“…it was nevertheless desexualized.”
I kind of disagree… Her expression/pose combined with the crotch not being shown leaves little doubt in my mind what sort of act is going on here. But that’s just how I see it.
“implied sex” should refer to when the genitals are covered or obscured, but the sex act is fully visible, since otherwise you would have to tag every image of a pony gasping as explicit. while I cropped this for aesthetic reasons, not to desexualize it, it was nevertheless desexualized.
I’d only mark it as for sexual because bad tagging is better than being banned
tagging anything based on >implying >implications is a bad idea.
Oh it’s a stretch alright. ;) ;) ;D
what I mean is, yes I’ll mistag it, because it’s required to do so, not because I “” the “purpose” of doing so is to save the children. telling me what my purpose is, is trying to force me to it even when not required. you can save the children if you like, but don’t drag me into it. I do what’s required, and beyond that I’m free to not give a fuck.
Yeah, alright. I’ll give you that. Although the MLP franchise was initially marketed toward a particular demographic, this current generation has arguably broken out of that mold, and doesn’t necessarily follow the same pattern.
Though, even then, it isn’t like adult fans would never have a reason to want to avoid explicit or possibly suggestive pieces of art… I mean if they were at work, browsing Derpibooru, then that sort of thing might get them in trouble… Though I guess that leaves a horribly ambiguous standard to measure up to.
That really seems like a stretch. I mean if we think that way, then all images could be filled with invisible dicks secretly coating everything in invisible cum.
Yeah. But what can we do? So say the mods/s, so say we all.
@Background Pony who downgraded this to “Questionable”
Also, bumped back up to explicit, because again, Implied Sex -> Explicit.
you’re free to see it any way you like. I agree that implied anything is murky, and my own best guess as to what could possibly be termed “implied sex” still isn’t a very good one. that’s why I don’t like the tag. and as for that wonderblots picture
>invisible blowjob
>eat fresh
I disagree that derpibooru s should be required to mistag images or tag images with misleading or incorrect, or poorly defined tags, in order to play moral police for a bunch of parents who can’t be assed to raise their kids right. that is not the purpose of these tags.
I also want to point out that hasbro doesn’t publish their private marketing data, such as what their target demographic, or demographics are. so you probably shouldn’t speak as if the target demographic of this particular genre is an objective truth and not just like, your opinion man.
I get the feeling that this is sort of perilous to debate… but here goes…
I always thought “implied sex” meant exactly what it sounded like: Some part of the image implied that sex was occurring/had occurred, but the image itself didn’t show that happening. The part that does the implying doesn’t need to be visual. I mean if there was an image of a pony reading an explicit age from a book (such that the text was visible in the image), that would clearly still be pornographic (at least in my opinion), or at least not safe for work/the target demographic.
I don’t think so… I mean for instance look at this safe image of the Wonderbolts gasping, I think it’d be quite a leap to say anything explicit is going on.
But with that said, it is true that “implied” is a very murky term… I mean, I could edit the original image to show explicitly that nothing pornographic was occurring (i.e. add in a featureless crotch), while leaving Apple Bloom’s orgasmic expression in. And that wouldn’t be explicit… And if we contrived that as the context of this crop-edit, then would it be implying anything? Not really…
But that’s a bit much.
We have to the purpose of these tags is so that a someone from the target demographic doesn’t stumble on something implying/involving something inappropriate for their age. Or so someone browsing at work won’t accidentally /view something that could get them fired.
I kind of disagree… Her expression/pose combined with the crotch not being shown leaves little doubt in my mind what sort of act is going on here. But that’s just how I see it.
well, I sort of changed my mind there.
“implied sex” should refer to when the genitals are covered or obscured, but the sex act is fully visible, since otherwise you would have to tag every image of a pony gasping as explicit. while I cropped this for aesthetic reasons, not to desexualize it, it was nevertheless desexualized.
I’d only mark it as for sexual because bad tagging is better than being banned
tagging anything based on >implying >implications is a bad idea.
It is indeed. Implied Sex is considered explicit.