• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Main Site Mature tagging for fetish art?

Fetish art = NSFW?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Lorel

Moody Bison
I've been wondering for a while why numerous types of fetish art are allowed outside the mature/NSFW FA view.
I mean.. the very definition of SFW is "I could open the site at my workplace without getting into trouble".
So shouldn't all fetish art then be at least mature?
Hyper, fatfur, diaper/adbp, ahegao, musk, paw/footplay, bulges held right into the camera or being worshipped, vore, bondage, ... - that's all far far more mature than the whole "this animal has a sheath" discussion that has forced even some ken-body adopts into the mature tag...

And no comments like "buuhuu, you wouldn't want your boss to find out you are a furry anyway", please. I'm serious. The mature/adult tagging is there to protect those that want to visit the site for SFW stuff. And it should be treated like that in my eyes.
Yes, for some people some of those fetishes may be a life style or have nothing to do with adult play, but that still doesn't change that for most others.. it's just a fetish.
 

TyraWadman

The Brutally Honest Man-Child
the very definition of SFW is "I could open the site at my workplace without getting into trouble".
This is very true, and I was equally confused by this a while back! I think the best way to interpret this though, is more along the lines of G, PG and rated R.

Some people don't care to tag their art properly, so definitely report if you see NSFW in a general rating, but not all 'categories/themes' are inherently sexual.

If you see a cub (a little furball just wearin a diaper, by itself) as a fetish, then any and all family portraits of OC's would also have to be nuked, because you're automatically under the assumption that it's somehow sexual. I don't see that ending well, because then any overweight character would also have to go. And muscular. And then you'd basically have nothing because now FA has to define every specific rule and exception imaginable. Like defining what is 'normal'. Good luck with that one. XD
 

Luminouscales

Go, Atropos.
This is something I would never not support. Having the honour to open FA without having mildly, yet obviously (sometimes even repulsive) fetish art would be a blessing. Unfortunately, the hardest part is in drawing the line itself, as Tyra gave an example of. I would say the main issue lies in the fact that something can both be sexually and visually appealing to a person, which creates the issue itself. At the core of things: furry characters are in themselves a fetish by design to many, and purging that would bring about the obvious.
Personally, I think the artist should set the rating based on the art's honest premise. Any art that focuses on displaying their aesthetic in a lewd, sexual way should be Mature at least - this means bulges, asses, breasts and whatnot being the core part of an art, no matter if fetish or not, should immediately be Mature by default. I'm kinda tired of seeing bikini women obviously sexualized, with the rating not being debatable by rule standards.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
Part of the problem you're seeing is that the meaning of "SFW" has shifted over time. It's rarely used as "I could open this image at work" anymore, and more as a shorthand for "this isn't overtly sexual or bloody violent." I'm sure there could be better ways of phrasing it, but that's kind of what many areas of the Internet seem to have settled on.

The other part is that it's nigh impossible for a third party to tell what the intent of a piece of artwork is. I drew a silly thing illustrating an in-joke with a friend. No nudity, no attempt or intention to make it suggestive whatsoever. People have argued with me about how it's oh so obvious that the artist intended it as wank material, somehow missing the fact that I am that artist. The only way to have a somewhat consistently enforced set of rules is to name concrete, observable features that may or may not be present in the work. If FA were to shift the ratings rules more towards intent, it would lead to moderators being put in a position where they have to guess at artistic intent, and that's going to lead to less uniform enforcement because it involves so many judgment calls.

There's also a secondary concern there: minors may not upload anything outside the General category. A judgment call saying "this was intended to cater to a kink" about a minor's artwork would result in their account getting mature locked, which will have future consequences for that individual.

There's a couple of examples in OP I do want to address specifically, though:
I'm not sure what sort of hyper content you're talking about here? I'm most used to seeing the term associated with exaggerated breasts and/or genitalia, which I believe would put it in Mature. Definitely for the genitalia (see below); I thought I recalled something that would clearly apply to breasts, but that's either changed since or my brain's muddled itself up. If there's nipple outlines it definitely goes into Mature, though. It's not something I draw myself, as a rule, so I've not kept close track of it.

Oversized body parts outside of these are... complicated; it's the kind of thing that's also played for laughs in cartoons, and that's where things get hairy.

bulges held right into the camera or being worshipped
Bulges with any kind of detailing, or exaggerated in size, already belong in Mature. I realize that leaves some gray area where the content you describe could potentially fit, but most of what I've seen that fits your description would be covered by existing ratings rules.
 

Pomorek

Antelope-Addicted Hyena
A very random idea (and I'm sleepy so forgive if I'm rambling) but anyway: since we sort-of concluded that it's too hard to draw the line according to the mature ratings, maybe it would help to have fetish as a separate category? An option to choose when submitting art, independent of the mature rating levels. Which then should be possible to filter out (or actually focus on, for those interested).

I know there's a list of, among others, fetishes to choose from when uploading, but I suppose that many people can't be bothered to sift through all the numerous options. A simple yes/no selection right in your face on the submission site (with an optional list maybe) seems more reasonable, from the "user psychology" standpoint.

Now, a proper tag blacklisting would solve a lot of the overall issue. But then there's the situation of people not tagging their stuff correctly, which probably applies to any and all possible solutions.
 

GentleButter

Digital Artist
A very random idea (and I'm sleepy so forgive if I'm rambling) but anyway: since we sort-of concluded that it's too hard to draw the line according to the mature ratings, maybe it would help to have fetish as a separate category? An option to choose when submitting art, independent of the mature rating levels. Which then should be possible to filter out (or actually focus on, for those interested).

I know there's a list of, among others, fetishes to choose from when uploading, but I suppose that many people can't be bothered to sift through all the numerous options. A simple yes/no selection right in your face on the submission site (with an optional list maybe) seems more reasonable, from the "user psychology" standpoint.

Now, a proper tag blacklisting would solve a lot of the overall issue. But then there's the situation of people not tagging their stuff correctly, which probably applies to any and all possible solutions.
not a bad idea
like, you could choose to not see "fetish" specifically while scrolling
this would also help me with categorizing some art pieces i get commissioned
 

TyraWadman

The Brutally Honest Man-Child
A very random idea (and I'm sleepy so forgive if I'm rambling) but anyway: since we sort-of concluded that it's too hard to draw the line according to the mature ratings, maybe it would help to have fetish as a separate category?

Like, as in selecting General, Mature, Adult, Fetish?

Because I'm pretty sure there's already a fetish tag people can choose. I know they've said blacklisting is one of their future goals so that's just a matter of waiting.
 

ben909

vaporeon
the flaw with a separate tag for fetish stuff, or a 4th mature option is that some will be missed... but i guess thats not the biggest problem
 

Troj

Your Friendly Neighborhood Dino Therapist
Me personally, I tag anything that depicts weapons, occultism, nudity, lingerie/underwear, or fetishes as Mature, and sex and explicit violence as Adult, unless a piece of art could plausibly be interpreted by the average person as totally G-rated. This is to maintain my privacy and boundaries on my own page to some small extent, accommodate those who don't want to see such content, and protect minors.

The two functions I want most on FA are blacklisting and the ability to sort gallery entries.
 
Last edited:

Pomorek

Antelope-Addicted Hyena
Like, as in selecting General, Mature, Adult, Fetish?

Because I'm pretty sure there's already a fetish tag people can choose. I know they've said blacklisting is one of their future goals so that's just a matter of waiting.
There is an option to mark a submission as containing fetish themes - but it's tucked away in the "Theme" expandable list, which is very long and lumps fetishes together with types of artwork and types of music.

I consider myself a "meticulous user", I want to have the species marked correctly in my art, which is in another list like this. And I find it inconvenient, to sift through all the entries every time looking for the correct one (not to mention that some common species are missing or mislabeled - "Equestrians", what the heck even? :D). So it's easy for me to imagine that a less-meticulous user won't even bother digging through these lists. A simple yes/no selection right there in the open would do more good.

But if the tag blacklisting is coming, that's for the best I suppose. People are too careless to give their artwork a proper mature rating sometimes, this could happen with my "fetish rating" concept too. But the incentive to type in the correct tags is bigger, I imagine, as this is what affects whether your art will come up in relevant searches. And then, filtering by tags will probably be more effective than filtering by maturity ratings, which is not giving best effects currently.
 

Lorel

Moody Bison
I think the best way to interpret this though, is more along the lines of G, PG and rated R.
Well, if we go by that, SFW would mean safe for children, yes? :T Then there really shouldn't be anything that even slightly steps into a grey area.
Some people don't care to tag their art properly, so definitely report if you see NSFW in a general rating, but not all 'categories/themes' are inherently sexual.
I usually comment then to ask the person to change the rating instead of reporting right away. Only if that gets ignored or the answer is a block, I report.
And yes, not everything is of course inherently sexual. But there come in the intentions behind the picture.
If you see a cub (a little furball just wearin a diaper, by itself) as a fetish, then any and all family portraits of OC's would also have to be nuked, because you're automatically under the assumption that it's somehow sexual.
I disagree here because we are not talking about an automated system and one should be able to see the difference between a cute little baby and for example including watersports or scat in the way of making said baby soil it's diapers and holding it towards the viewer. That is loopholed cub porn in my eyes. And the moment an adult is wearing diapers (without a medical need to do so, and lets be honest; that is never the case on FA..) it's a fetish. Period.
because then any overweight character would also have to go. And muscular.
Disagree hard here, too, for the same reason. You should be able to see a difference between "chubby girl" and "mountain of fat" - same for muscular characters. The distinction is really very very obvious. I would post pictures, but I don't plan on offending any artist or commissioner here.
furry characters are in themselves a fetish by design to many
Yes and no? XD Thing is... FA is not a site that is adult-only. Meaning it should protect minors. This implies that the furry characters in themselves are meant to be seen as child-friendly overall, not as a fetish. Of course to many they are a fetish. But if we handle the furry/anthro char themselves as fetish material, then the site would need to be 18+ in general and that's a whole different topic.
Personally, I think the artist should set the rating based on the art's honest premise. Any art that focuses on displaying their aesthetic in a lewd, sexual way should be Mature at least - this means bulges, asses, breasts and whatnot being the core part of an art, no matter if fetish or not, should immediately be Mature by default. I'm kinda tired of seeing bikini women obviously sexualized, with the rating not being debatable by rule standards.
This. All of it. The artist should be honest about the intention behind the picture.
Part of the problem you're seeing is that the meaning of "SFW" has shifted over time. It's rarely used as "I could open this image at work" anymore, and more as a shorthand for "this isn't overtly sexual or bloody violent." I'm sure there could be better ways of phrasing it, but that's kind of what many areas of the Internet seem to have settled on.
This is probably true. Even worse then that not too long ago the whole "feral animals being pictured realistically (with a sheath if male) are to be tagged as mature" - then you go to the front page and a huge bulge is pressed into your face. Like.. honestly, do you cut that off the family dog so the child doesn't see it? But if the father presses his junk into the child's face, it's alright? I think that FA's team has to really think that rating system through again. I know someone who's gotten 2 strikes already for ken-body adopts. Literally nothing but a small mount was in-between the legs, indicating that.. well, it's male. It wasn't even a sheath or bulge. And it has been successfully reported for being in general, not mature. Something's wrong about this..
There's also a secondary concern there: minors may not upload anything outside the General category. A judgment call saying "this was intended to cater to a kink" about a minor's artwork would result in their account getting mature locked, which will have future consequences for that individual.
No concern in my eyes. If a child uploads stuff that could be considered mature in the eyes of a mod, then that's it. That is the intention behind child-protective laws.
I'm not sure what sort of hyper content you're talking about here? I'm most used to seeing the term associated with exaggerated breasts and/or genitalia, which I believe would put it in Mature.
I'm referring to: hyper-bulges, hyper-breasts, hyper-asses, hyper-fatness and hyper-muscle. That is all clearly aiming towards a certain type of fetish. Yes, sometimes it's meant to be comical, but still - let's not pretend, please. Let's not loophole.
Bulges with any kind of detailing, or exaggerated in size, already belong in Mature.
Yes and no on this. I've seen at least 10 clearly outlined bulges yesterday while browser SFW art on less than three sites. FA is not clear about this, obviously.
Just to show one example of... werid... tagging (was in the second line on the front page when I just clicked on browse while writing this):

1622795072987.png


Sexy, pole, striptease, stripclub - all things you wouldn't want to see in General, right? This here is something minors see while browsing. This is seemingly okay. And the rules don't explicitely say that this wouldn't be okay. Because there's no sex in the picture.
A simple yes/no selection right in your face on the submission site (with an optional list maybe) seems more reasonable, from the "user psychology" standpoint.
I'm all for this, yes.
Now, a proper tag blacklisting would solve a lot of the overall issue. But then there's the situation of people not tagging their stuff correctly, which probably applies to any and all possible solutions.
Yes, which is why I and others have suggested a tagging system where other people can suggest tags on art. FA needs such a system so badly.
Me personally, I tag anything that depicts weapons, occultism, nudity, lingerie/underwear, or fetishes as Mature, and sex and explicit violence as Adult, unless a piece of art could plausibly be interpreted by the average person as totally G-rated. This is to maintain my privacy and boundaries on my own page to some small extent, accommodate those who don't want to see such content, and protect minors.
^THIS. Exaclty this.

Just some examples of things I found today's morning through the SFW browsing. Reminder: these images are seemingly all safe to see for children according to current rules!
1622795966676.png
1622796006604.png
1622796042669.png
1622796134279.png
1622796209992.png
1622796274866.png
1622796311309.png
1622796323976.png
1622796350832.png
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
Well, if we go by that, SFW would mean safe for children, yes? :T Then there really shouldn't be anything that even slightly steps into a grey area.
FA's minimum age is 13 (as are all websites that allow custom user-uploaded content; COPPA is fairly strict in that regard); the correct equivalent there would be PG-13. You'll see many of the things you're concerned about in PG-13 movies or even cartoons for younger audiences, as well as billboard ads that obviously are visible to everyone. (I distinctly recall an episode of Tom & Jerry that featured Tom being put in a bonnet, diaper, and baby booties/mitts and fed a bottle, for instance.) I'm not arguing that people aren't pushing the boundaries of what should be acceptable in General, but rather that gray areas are unavoidable and assuming poor faith is swinging too far in the other direction.

Yes and no on this. I've seen at least 10 clearly outlined bulges yesterday while browser SFW art on less than three sites. FA is not clear about this, obviously.
Just to show one example of... werid... tagging (was in the second line on the front page when I just clicked on browse while writing this):
"People upload this as General" and "this belongs in General" are two very separate things. I believe I can say this without violating NDA: when I was staff, I saw a lot of "well I didn't know" type responses to all kinds of infractions being issued, including ratings. That included very textbook violations, that there's practically zero chance they wouldn't "know" about if they'd paid any attention reading the AUP. People not reading rules and going by "well I saw someone do this so it must be okay" is sadly a widespread problem. (This isn't isolated to FA, but is definitely present here.) At least one of the images you posted is misrated, I can say with a reasonable level of confidence; probably more than that. If you don't report it, staff won't know about it, no action will be taken, and it will stay in General unless/until the artist rerates it on their own.

I'm referring to: hyper-bulges, hyper-breasts, hyper-asses, hyper-fatness and hyper-muscle. That is all clearly aiming towards a certain type of fetish. Yes, sometimes it's meant to be comical, but still - let's not pretend, please. Let's not loophole.
The first is definitely Mature. The second I'm fairly confident is Mature. I maintain that automatically assuming the intent is sexual will unfairly impact people who intended something else entirely. I'm not going to include the submission of mine that's really caused a stir because, well, last time I linked it it caused a ridiculous amount of drama, but here's a couple of pieces I made that probably could fall under "hyper fat" but which have zero sexual intent and would be hit by a hard-line rule against anatomical exaggeration (I'm hoping the images work, but I've linked them to the submissions as well in case they don't):

Yes, people will look for loopholes and push boundaries. They will do that regardless. The concern I have is that people who draw the art you're put off by with no intent to cater to fetishes or kinks will end up getting hurt if rules are made too strict. Imagine a minor uploading the fatty fatty bunnies above, and getting their account mature locked because a mod said "it's hyper fat and therefore fetish material." No big deal while the minor is still a minor, from a standpoint of the website features they have access to, but it would mean they need to go through the process of verifying their age in order to ever unlock their account, even after they turn 18. Also, if they upload another image deemed to be Mature, they could be permanently banned for not respecting the mature lock on their account.
 
Last edited:

The_biscuits_532

Sneaky rainforest kitty
FA's minimum age is 13 (as are all websites that allow custom user-uploaded content; COPPA is fairly strict in that regard); the correct equivalent there would be PG-13. You'll see many of the things you're concerned about in PG-13 movies or even cartoons for younger audiences. (I distinctly recall an episode of Tom & Jerry that featured Tom being put in a bonnet, diaper, and baby booties/mitts and fed a bottle, for instance.) I'm not arguing that people aren't pushing the boundaries of what should be acceptable in General, but rather that gray areas are unavoidable and assuming poor faith is swinging too far in the other direction.


"People upload this as General" and "this belongs in General" are two very separate things. I believe I can say this without violating NDA: when I was staff, I saw a lot of "well I didn't know" type responses to all kinds of infractions being issued, including ratings. That included very textbook violations, that there's practically zero chance they wouldn't "know" about if they'd paid any attention reading the AUP. People not reading rules and going by "well I saw someone do this so it must be okay" is sadly a widespread problem. (This isn't isolated to FA, but is definitely present here.) At least one of the images you posted is misrated, I can say with a reasonable level of confidence; probably more than that. If you don't report it, staff won't know about it, no action will be taken, and it will stay in General unless/until the artist rerates it on their own.


The first is definitely Mature. The second I'm fairly confident is Mature. I maintain that automatically assuming the intent is sexual will unfairly impact people who intended something else entirely. I'm not going to include the submission of mine that's really caused a stir because, well, last time I linked it it caused a ridiculous amount of drama, but here's a couple of pieces I made that probably could fall under "hyper fat" but which have zero sexual intent and would be hit by a hard-line rule against anatomical exaggeration (I'm hoping the images work, but I've linked them to the submissions as well in case they don't):

Yes, people will look for loopholes and push boundaries. They will do that regardless. The concern I have is that people who draw the art you're put off by with no intent to cater to fetishes or kinks will end up getting hurt if rules are made too strict. Imagine a minor uploading the fatty fatty bunnies above, and getting their account mature locked because a mod said "it's hyper fat and therefore fetish material." No big deal while the minor is still a minor, from a standpoint of the website features they have access to, but it would mean they need to go through the process of verifying their age in order to ever unlock their account, even after they turn 18. Also, if they upload another image deemed to be Mature, they could be permanently banned for not respecting the mature lock on their account.
This may also cause issues for certain species tbh

Take the Manul for example.
it's thicc af, and just looks like an overweight cat

1622802368668.png
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
I've made this topic before but to say i agree isn't surprising.
 

Lorel

Moody Bison
FA's minimum age is 13
Still a child until 18.. A 13-year-old should still not have to see such stuff. :T It's illegal in most places to expose people younger than 18 to porn. And fetishe# art pieces are porn.
(I distinctly recall an episode of Tom & Jerry that featured Tom being put in a bonnet, diaper, and baby booties/mitts and fed a bottle, for instance.)
I remember that too. And I remember that Tom didn't wet or shit himself during that short scene. And that it still left a weird feeling behind.
the things you're concerned about in PG-13 movies or even cartoons for younger audiences, as well as billboard ads
Show me a billboard ad or a pg-13 movie that features a literal mountain of fat with a super small head on top, sweating and farting, while tentacles/slime pump food into the mouthhole.
"People upload this as General" and "this belongs in General" are two very separate things.
That is true. But the rules on that should be enforced or at least easy to access. The rules on FA are split apart in a very weird way. :T
It would be so easy to have a small text next to the rating box that tells you what belongs into what.
"well I didn't know"
Ignorance is no excuse in law.
At least one of the images you posted is misrated, I can say with a reasonable level of confidence; probably more than that. If you don't report it, staff won't know about it, no action will be taken, and it will stay in General unless/until the artist rerates it on their own.
Yes, of course - *but* then that is the case on a daily if not hourly bases. This happens a lot.
have zero sexual intent and would be hit by a hard-line rule against anatomical exaggeration
Not if that hard-line rule is against anatomical exaggeration with a fetish background. The intention here is key, obviously.
Take the Manul for example.
it's thicc af, and just looks like an overweight cat
Funny that you chose *that* picture, when you could have shown something like this, with muscle definition and clearly showing that it's just a bunch of fur:
1622817427359.png

Same animal.
There is a difference between drawing an overweight character and an absurdly fat one that is just a walking fetish.
One of the two shouldn't be exposed to children.
 

The_biscuits_532

Sneaky rainforest kitty
Still a child until 18.. A 13-year-old should still not have to see such stuff. :T It's illegal in most places to expose people younger than 18 to porn. And fetishe# art pieces are porn.

I remember that too. And I remember that Tom didn't wet or shit himself during that short scene. And that it still left a weird feeling behind.

Show me a billboard ad or a pg-13 movie that features a literal mountain of fat with a super small head on top, sweating and farting, while tentacles/slime pump food into the mouthhole.

That is true. But the rules on that should be enforced or at least easy to access. The rules on FA are split apart in a very weird way. :T
It would be so easy to have a small text next to the rating box that tells you what belongs into what.

Ignorance is no excuse in law.

Yes, of course - *but* then that is the case on a daily if not hourly bases. This happens a lot.

Not if that hard-line rule is against anatomical exaggeration with a fetish background. The intention here is key, obviously.

Funny that you chose *that* picture, when you could have shown something like this, with muscle definition and clearly showing that it's just a bunch of fur:
View attachment 112117
Same animal.
There is a difference between drawing an overweight character and an absurdly fat one that is just a walking fetish.
One of the two shouldn't be exposed to children.
Tbf I was mostly joking lmao.

But yeah that's a Manul with a summer coat. The winter ones are like what I posted.

Otherwise yeah I agree
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
As stated prior, I think that to a degree it's usually quite obvious what is and isn't fetish art even if that judgement can be considered subjective. Even if it wasn't explicitly obvious, it should be obvious what a child should and shouldn't see, and if a SFW feature is added to a website which allows children to join it, and that SFW feature is automatically on for children, I feel that it should be more enforced and/or have a better tagging system in order to ensure that it is more reliable.

That, or raise the age limit of joining to 16+ so you don't have to worry too much about alleged PG content not being so PG. Most roleplay forum websites have 16+ as their join age for this reason due to not wanting to deal with children. I'm sure that's not how it's worded, it's much nicer in the rule books, but that's basically what it tends to mean.

I do have a custom FA extension that does a good job of hiding a large chunk of not-SFW SFW submissions via it's pruning system, but even that won't get everything. It still helps quite a bit, so I'd recommend people get things like Filter Affinity to help with avoiding unwanted content.
 

TyraWadman

The Brutally Honest Man-Child
Well, if we go by that, SFW would mean safe for children, yes? :T Then there really shouldn't be anything that even slightly steps into a grey area.
Mungo already got this. Laws only permit 13+ and most kids have learned about the reproduction system and pornography at that point.
This. All of it. The artist should be honest about the intention behind the picture.
I agree with this, fully. However, there are creeps out there that will deny any sexual involvement, even when it blatantly features things like erections.

Having NSFW tags in General art is also against the rules actually! Also, some of those images you posted were definitely mislabeled and should be reported. I'm sure you know which ones. There are people that don't speak or read fluent English using this website and then there are those that sign up without ever reviewing the rules. I don't think it's fair to assume that FA is just 'allowing' it to stay. :rolleyes:

If you're going to assume something about an artist, then don't be surprised when it comes back to you. Growing up I knew very little about furries and what they were all about and there's so much divide. If you have a talking wolf that walks on 4 legs, people automatically label you as a zoophile, but making them walk on two legs with a canine member is somehow acceptable? It doesn't make sense to me at all.

In short, there would be a lot of fuel for mobs and kink shaming and if you have to assume the worst in one person, staff would have to do it for the rest of FA. No one would be safe at that point, because everyone has different backgrounds and interpretations of things and, like I said, good luck laying out the rules for what is considered 'normal'. What is normal for one culture could be considered offensive to another.

I am all for improving the tagging system and blacklisting, but there is never gonna be a solution that is truly 'unbreakable' without sacrifice.
 

MatchaDog

Avid matcha consumer
As stated prior, I think that to a degree it's usually quite obvious what is and isn't fetish art even if that judgement can be considered subjective. Even if it wasn't explicitly obvious, it should be obvious what a child should and shouldn't see, and if a SFW feature is added to a website which allows children to join it, and that SFW feature is automatically on for children, I feel that it should be more enforced and/or have a better tagging system in order to ensure that it is more reliable.

That, or raise the age limit of joining to 16+ so you don't have to worry too much about alleged PG content not being so PG. Most roleplay forum websites have 16+ as their join age for this reason due to not wanting to deal with children. I'm sure that's not how it's worded, it's much nicer in the rule books, but that's basically what it tends to mean.

I do have a custom FA extension that does a good job of hiding a large chunk of not-SFW SFW submissions via it's pruning system, but even that won't get everything. It still helps quite a bit, so I'd recommend people get things like Filter Affinity to help with avoiding unwanted content.
Oh my gosh I didn't know there was a filter available and honestly I had never even thought to look for one. Thanks for that suggestion! Even as an adult I prefer not to see fetish content as it just makes me uncomfortable, even if the intent isn't sexual. I was quite literally 14 the first time I was on FA and the fetish work on FA factored in to me leaving the site (and practically the fandom) for a few years before I came back.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
Oh my gosh I didn't know there was a filter available and honestly I had never even thought to look for one. Thanks for that suggestion! Even as an adult I prefer not to see fetish content as it just makes me uncomfortable, even if the intent isn't sexual. I was quite literally 14 the first time I was on FA and the fetish work on FA factored in to me leaving the site (and practically the fandom) for a few years before I came back.

Yep, it's a life saver: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/filter-affinity/bcnniocfbnmaiakhpgpeicghfogdjfhe?hl=en-US
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
That is true. But the rules on that should be enforced or at least easy to access. The rules on FA are split apart in a very weird way. :T
It would be so easy to have a small text next to the rating box that tells you what belongs into what.
The rules are enforced when users report the submissions. I know plenty of people break the rules, trust me. But staff can only address that problem if users take responsibility on their end and report the violations. When creating an account users agree to follow the rules. It's literally the first item in the Terms of Service. The Ratings section of the AUP is the first item in that document and almost a screenful in itself on my monitor - inserting that on the upload page would necessitate either condensing the rules further (probably not what you'd want - brevity and specificity are kind of diametrically opposed) or making the upload process inconvenient for everyone, including people who do read the rules, by introducing blocks of text and extra scrolling.

And absolutely, ignorance does not excuse breaking the rules (except in rare edge cases where, yeah, you could do the wrong thing in good faith and shouldn't necessarily be penalized for trying and getting it wrong); that's kind of my point. You argued that FA wasn't clear enough about the boundaries between ratings, and that's where "I didn't know" comes in - if people don't read the rules it doesn't matter how clear FA is about what goes where, because it's still a toss-up whether those people would put things where they belong or somewhere else entirely.

Show me a billboard ad or a pg-13 movie that features a literal mountain of fat with a super small head on top, sweating and farting, while tentacles/slime pump food into the mouthhole.
You know just as well as I do that there's a huge difference between "these things occur separately" and "these things occur all at once." Asking for the latter when the problem is the former (unless you really only want to change the rating of submissions that involve extreme fat, sweat, flatulence, tentacles/slime, and forcefeeding, all together) is disingenuous. If memory serves you've got some serious inflation including proportionally tiny head and hands in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Jabba the Hutt fits the "mountain of fat" description pretty well (FAIK Star Wars is not higher than PG-13). I've seen billboard ads with dudes in sweaty tanktops. Flatulence is a staple of kid humor. Tentacles show up in any number of children's "monster" movies, and I relatively recently saw a children's movie on Netflix that involved the villain force feeding the king cookies that would make him love her (I can't recall the title because my memory is shite; it involved a magical version of Scotland Yard and two siblings turned from adults into kids).

Billboard ads was more addressing things like bikini/lingerie shots, in general, though. They tend towards the provocative and are definitely sexualized. It's an awkward line to draw and "open to interpretation" is not something to strive for in rules, hence the clear "no visible nipples/nipple bumps" in the rules.

Not if that hard-line rule is against anatomical exaggeration with a fetish background. The intention here is key, obviously.
And my argument all along is that rules based on "intent" by their nature would create a situation where enforcement gets less uniform, and people are more likely to get dinged for something they posted in good faith because someone else took exception to their fatty fatty bunny or whatever. I know that I didn't draw a ludicrously fat bunny riding a carrot to tickle anyones jimmies, but how do the mods know that? Putting staff in a situation where they have to guess at intent is not fair to them nor to the users who would be impacted by their decisions when they shouldn't be (ie when the intent wasn't in fact sexual).

I remember that too. And I remember that Tom didn't wet or shit himself during that short scene. And that it still left a weird feeling behind.
(Sorry about this being out of order, my brain is all over the place and the new interface isn't being very cooperative with me trying to move quotes around.)
I want to say the little girl who dressed him up changed him as though he'd wet himself, but that's neither here nor there. I mentioned that scene specifically because you were arguing that any situation involving an adult wearing a diaper for anything other than medical reasons, is fetish content:
And the moment an adult is wearing diapers (without a medical need to do so, and lets be honest; that is never the case on FA..) it's a fetish. Period.
I can't speak for the AUP staff, because I only addressed AUP tickets rarely and only for blatant offenses for most of my time on staff, but it appears as though AUP actually prohibits depictions of faeces in General (emphasis mine):
Upload Policy Section 1.1 - Ratings said:
General Content Guidelines
[...]
Free of sexual fluids, bodily waste, or forced involuntary drug use. Minimal blood presented in a comedic manner or mild, non-violent injury is permitted.
To me that suggests that visibly soiled diapers, or at the very least diapers soiled with solid waste (I don't recall whether "bodily waste" was intended to include urine or not when the policy was discussed), would probably violate the ratings rules. But that's just my reading; you'd have to ask current staff for clarification on that point.

I do want to stress that I agree with you in part - there is some content that technically falls into the General category that doesn't feel like it truly fits there. Maybe the rules could be adjusted to move some of that content to Mature without much collateral damage - if so, great! What I strongly disagree with, and am pushing back against, is the scope of the changes you're proposing. Sweeping changes moving a lot of frankly pretty harmless content to Mature would create a very hostile environment for artists who create this content, and particularly those who create it with no sexual intent.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I wonder whether setting the default option as mature, so that users had to manually decide to declare an upload is suitable for all audiences, would approve compliance.

Sexualised imagery being incorrectly described as 'general' is a problem I have seen people complain about for a long time, but I haven't seen many solutions posed.
It's improbable that the site staff would be able to manually respond to all incorrectly classified content, for example.

So an 'automated' fix like this might actually change the calculus?
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
I wonder whether setting the default option as mature, so that users had to manually decide to declare an upload is suitable for all audiences, would approve compliance.

Sexualised imagery being incorrectly described as 'general' is a problem I have seen people complain about for a long time, but I haven't seen many solutions posed.
It's improbable that the site staff would be able to manually respond to all incorrectly classified content, for example.

So an 'automated' fix like this might actually change the calculus?

This is actually a great idea.
I hope this can be done within a year or three. :D
 
Top