# How exactly do you consider something to be "NSFW"?



## Zeitzbach (Dec 28, 2013)

Without a doubt, nipples, vaginas and penises are NSFW by default.

But what about the stuffs that almost cross the line?

Male kissing male / female kissing female. Probably SFW but as a just-in-case, might as well ask.
Big breast naked female furry body with everything covered. Does bigger breast in this case mean NSFW?
Those sexually attractive poses with no exposure.  Where exactly do they go? When do they exactly cross the line?
What about fetishes? Sometime, superfat deserves to go there but sometime, they just don't.

NSFW is pretty obvious when it comes to human but furry is kind of, yeah, lots of complicated stuffs here and there.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Dec 28, 2013)

I guess anything particularly and quite obviously fetishy.


----------



## Zenia (Dec 28, 2013)

Technically I can look at whatever I want at work... I own the business. lol

But I would consider anything nude and/or fetishy and/or gory to be NSFW.


----------



## Zeitzbach (Dec 28, 2013)

Nude is so much easier to define in human drawing case.

But furcoat is in a way, a clothing on its own. How exactly do we consider something to be nude in furry case now? Like, a dog with his penis exposed is NSFW but if you add a small fur brush there instead, it's suddenly SFW.

The boob case is what getting me wondering everytime I draw something with big breast. Is it okay with no nipple exposed? It looks natural when the breast is rather small but big one...

Gory is without a doubt NSFW. Same goes to Vore.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Dec 28, 2013)

In terms of furry nudity, much like human nudity, I've always looked at it as:
Female nipples / visible genitals = NSFW.
No nipples / no visible genitals / "Barbie nudity" = SFW.
I guess it's just the amount of detail.

Obviously, this doesn't still apply if the Barbie nudity picture is sexual.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 28, 2013)

I think of NSFW as a pic that is meant to arouse you by showing it all or teasing with the bits covered.
A statue, naked, I don't feel nsfw since it isn't a porn object.


----------



## Lobar (Dec 28, 2013)

It's kind of in the name.  Anything that would get you into trouble at work should be tagged NSFW.


----------



## Zeitzbach (Dec 28, 2013)

Vaelarsa said:


> In terms of furry nudity, much like human nudity, I've always looked at it as:
> Female nipples / visible genitals = NSFW.
> No nipples / no visible genitals / "Barbie nudity" = SFW.
> I guess it's just the amount of detail.
> ...



So barbie rules apply here too then.



Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I think of NSFW as a pic that is meant to arouse you by showing it all or teasing with the bits covered.
> A statue, naked, I don't feel nsfw since it isn't a porn object.



I guess this falls along that poses part then. Does lesbo or gay kissing fall under this then? Some people do feel aroused by that and some just don't. Even random pushing and fighting scene that landed on the bed with no real expression change and sexual intent can fall under it if some random Yaoi fangirls try hard enough.



Lobar said:


> It's kind of in the name.  Anything that would get you into trouble at work should be tagged NSFW.



It's kind of possible to get anyone in trouble in this community even with NSFW tag, or even on a SFW pic if they really try hard enough.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 28, 2013)

Does a kiss between the different sexes get you at trouble for viewing publicly? No.
Same sex kisses are the same thing, nothing special about them.
Anything can be seen sexually enticing. People get off on just about anything. You just gotta look at things through the average Joe's eyes.


----------



## Zeitzbach (Dec 28, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> Does a kiss between the different sexes get you at trouble for viewing publicly? No.
> Same sex kisses are the same thing, nothing special about them.
> Anything can be seen sexually enticing. People get off on just about anything. *You just gotta look at things through the average Joe's eyes.*



TEACH ME SENSEI.

But yeah, I guess for the poses case, we can go with public viewing for them.


----------



## BRN (Dec 28, 2013)

Zeitzbach said:


> It's kind of possible to get anyone in trouble in this community even with NSFW tag, or even on a SFW pic if they really try hard enough.



I don't really think that detracts from what he meant, though. Whether or not someone clicks on it and then gets in trouble, the image is still NSFW. 

I mean, if it wasn't safe for you to view at work, it should have been tagged NSFW, even if it wasn't. Merrgh... I guess what I'm really saying here is exactly what Lobar said, just in more words. If it'll get you in trouble, it's NSFW. 

Or did you mean something else, like "what would get you in trouble?"


----------



## Zeitzbach (Dec 28, 2013)

BRN said:


> I don't really think that detracts from what he meant, though. Whether or not someone clicks on it and then gets in trouble, the image is still NSFW.
> 
> I mean, if it wasn't safe for you to view at work, it should have been tagged NSFW, even if it wasn't. Merrgh... I guess what I'm really saying here is exactly what Lobar said, just in more words. If it'll get you in trouble, it's NSFW.
> 
> Or did you mean something else, like "what would get you in trouble?"



Kind of along that line. Trying to define and draw the exact line that would get me in trouble if I don't tag it.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 28, 2013)

Basically what Cup said but a little stricter. 
Anything remotely risque. Male or female.
For example, I have this girl. She's got nothing naughty showing and literally has no chest, but she's still QUITE developed and wearing something I personally don't find a fetish in (latex), but is still meant to arouse somewhat.

Even dudes like this chap by Jeso He's barely doing anything, but it's drawn to be seductive. Tastefully, but not appropriate for all ages.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Dec 28, 2013)

I think some of the really grey areas are in defining NSFW with a male, to be honest. Without specific boundaries to work off, I had a lot of trouble placing a specific drawing into the very black and white labelling of 'tame/not tame'. If you say anything without a dick is more or less safe, then a lot of work is gonna end up being tame. That's a pretty easy rule of thumb to work with.

But I just don't think it's as simple as that. Even without genitals showing, such an image can still feel anything but work-safe.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 28, 2013)

AlexxxLupo said:


> I think some of the really grey areas are in defining NSFW with a male, to be honest.



Well, just think about it. If we literally mean NSFW, as in not fit for any business/professional establishment, would you want either of these to be seen by whoever is in charge?

One 
Two

I wouldn't.

Not just the bods, but mannerisms. Well...that's just me though.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 28, 2013)

I think it's fun how the concept of what's safe to show for others changes over time with age.
If you showed that yellow thing xopachi linked to preschoolers they wouldn't know it was sexual in any way. In a way worksafe, but they'd laugh at the dongs drawn in old art like in Michelangelo's works.
But show the yellow thing to an adult and he sees latex and thinks of sex fetishes and flags nsfw, but it'd be totally safe to have a classic painting on the wall.


----------



## Zeitzbach (Dec 28, 2013)

I actually don't see anything wrong with those two though. But then again, I don't even know where to draw the line, which is why I'm asking.


----------



## Judge Spear (Dec 28, 2013)

Sarcastic Coffeecup said:


> I think it's fun how the concept of what's safe to show for others changes over time with age.
> If you showed that yellow thing xopachi linked to preschoolers they wouldn't know it was sexual in any way. In a way worksafe, but they'd laugh at the dongs drawn in old art like in Michelangelo's works.
> But show the yellow thing to an adult and he sees latex and thinks of sex fetishes and flags nsfw, but it'd be totally safe to have a classic painting on the wall.



That's pretty true and age is definitely another important factor. I suppose that's why we use NSF_Work. _â€‹Kids don't work...they need to. Lazy asses. :c


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Dec 28, 2013)

Zeitzbach said:


> I actually don't see anything wrong with those two though. But then again, I don't even know where to draw the line, which is why I'm asking.



Yeah, I'd agree. I think that both would be acceptable in _some_ work environments... like, if you were quite close with your boss in a small company, and you'd all just have a laugh about it. You'd get some funny looks though.

I think this is why we â€‹need rules/guidelines though. Everyone's perception of NSFW is different.


----------



## Zeitzbach (Dec 28, 2013)

What exactly is the guideline we're using for FA though?


----------



## BRN (Dec 28, 2013)

Zeitzbach said:


> I actually don't see anything wrong with those two though. But then again, I don't even know where to draw the line, which is why I'm asking.



Eh, you're trying to tie something in art to a human reaction.

There's a layer of subjectivity there that is literally infinitely flexible.

I have shown feral Sefeiren husky poon to colleagues without flinching, y'know? 

That said, if we're thinking about "what is the WORST reaction someone could have to this image", well... there are some people who like latex a lot, and I have been begged for the 'full pic' of cute avatars that happen to be hugging beachballs.

I'm not saying you can't find a line, but I'm saying you've gotta allow for an indefinite one.


----------



## rjbartrop (Dec 30, 2013)

The exact line?  Sorry, but there isn't one.   Art is a touchy-feelly business, and everyone has their own ideas about how much is too much, and it's not always about what is showing.  If you have doubts, it's probably best to err on the side of caution.


----------



## ThunderLane (Dec 30, 2013)

Zeitzbach said:


> Without a doubt, nipples, vaginas and penises are NSFW by default.
> 
> But what about the stuffs that almost cross the line?
> 
> ...





Honestly it is the general things like gore, vore, excessive sexual themes, drugs, etc.
Honestly in my own work, I use NSFW when I depict my darker themes simply because of all the younger eyes that may be present on the site.
Artistic nudity is not be considered NSFW because it is widely used in early art in appreciate for the beauty of the human body.
When I think of NSFW, I think of things that would make your boss eat you at the mere thought of you looking at it.


----------



## Sar (Dec 30, 2013)

Rule of thumb. If its something you wouldn't show around little kids, then it's NSFW.


----------



## Troj (Dec 31, 2013)

I occasionally have to be mindful of this, because my thresholds for violence, nudity, sex, and swearing are higher than many other people's.

I would say, if it includes sexualized genitalia, explicit sex acts, explicit violence, or heavy and non-incidental obscenity use, it's either NSFW, or approaching NSFW.


----------



## powderhound (Dec 31, 2013)

"If you have to ask..." chances are, someone's gonna think it's NSFW. If in doubt, just label it and move on. Everyone's gonna click it anyway.


----------



## Ty Rufus (Jan 20, 2014)

Well, as the abbreviation stands for, anything not safe for work. By extension, anything you'd be embarrassed to show. Though as you pointed out, the term mainly refers to anything mature, particularly anything sexual.


----------

