# What constitutes 'Mature Content'?



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Jun 23, 2011)

I am wondering what exactly the criteria are that require marking a submission as 'Mature Content' or 'Adult Content'.

Here is a submission that I think should be tagged as 'Mature', but is not:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5982040/

As you can see, male parts are clearly visible. I would think that this would constitute a 'Mature' tag, but others disagree.

Can someone please outline the specific criteria for 'Mature' and "adult' tagging, separately? Thanks!


----------



## Xenke (Jun 23, 2011)

My understanding is yes.

It's an nude with genitalia.


----------



## LizardKing (Jun 23, 2011)

Your mileage may vary.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 23, 2011)

Not that anyone really cares, but it's also worth mentioning that even by how she's rated submissions before, this is a "mature" piece.

Which means that she is defending it's "general" rating because she wants more people to bid and make her rich.

Furries being fickle to try and get money. Shocking. Yea, not really.


----------



## Deo (Jun 23, 2011)

Silverwolfoneofmany said:


> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5982040/


 That should be marked as mature. It's got a dog sheath and balls on it, and DO NOT WANT


----------



## SnowFox (Jun 23, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Your mileage may vary.


 
What, you mean like this?


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 23, 2011)

My guidelines for this kind of thing are as follows

No nudity, blood, gore, or swearing, etc. --> General
Nudity, blood, swearing, flaccid dick --> Mature
Porn, erect cock, gore --> Adult

I consider that pic up there Mature.


----------



## Heimdal (Jun 23, 2011)

Artistic nude is mature. Dicks because dicks is adult.

There is nothing 'fine art-like' about it. The only reason he's not drawn clothed is because... well, dicks. As far as I can tell. If there is another reason, it's not apparent in the art at all. It's anthro dog dicks because they wanted to display dicks.

It is absolutely adult.


----------



## LizardKing (Jun 24, 2011)

Well it's marked mature now.

I still don't understand why someone would pay $120+ (seriously) for nothing more than "character rights". You could pay for an awesome commission (or 5) instead. 

Furries.


----------



## Xenke (Jun 24, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Well it's marked mature now.
> 
> I still don't understand why someone would pay $120+ (seriously) for nothing more than "character rights". You could pay for an awesome commission (or 5) instead.
> 
> Furries.


 


> because my rl name is justin



Fucking retard.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 24, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Fucking retard.


 
...what?
Seriously, where the hell did that come from?
Don't make me beat your ass, boy
Let's all get along like we're all dating eachother.... with benefits


----------



## Xenke (Jun 24, 2011)

Clayton said:


> ...what?
> Seriously, where the hell did that come from?



One of the bidder's reason for bidding $103 and subsequently $125

It's honestly the stupidest reason to pay for someone else's character I've ever seen.



> Don't make me beat your ass, boy
> Let's all get along like we're all dating eachother.... with benefits


 
Oh murr baby, break out the leather.


----------



## Volkodav (Jun 24, 2011)

Xenke said:


> One of the bidder's reason for bidding $103 and subsequently $125
> 
> It's honestly the stupidest reason to pay for someone else's character I've ever seen.
> 
> ...



Yeah that's legit stupid. I hope it's a real bid though and not someone dicking around. That would suck for the real bidders :\


mmm ok after i go to my meeting with some sexy gorgeous
mmmm
police officers

then im gonna beat you


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jun 24, 2011)

I would think that nudity would constitute as "mature".


----------



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Jun 25, 2011)

Thank you all for the responses. I agree completely. This seems like a case of an artist bypassing the tagging system in order to get at a broader audience, and possibly, a sale. I had no idea they were asking that much for the rights to a character--grade A absurdity, if you ask me!


----------



## johnny (Jun 25, 2011)

I Don't know, thats odd. maybe the admin. skipped over it by accident, or a glitch? I really have no idea  :3


----------



## Edu_Madriaga06 (Jul 1, 2011)

Why Mature content is always 18, it could be 17 yrs old just like me I'm near 17 and Mature Content shall be for 17+ and adult for 18+


----------



## Accountability (Jul 1, 2011)

Edu_Madriaga06 said:


> Why Mature content is always 18, it could be 17 yrs old just like me I'm near 17 and Mature Content shall be for 17+ and adult for 18+


 
Because the law says 18.


----------



## Zenia (Jul 1, 2011)

Edu_Madriaga06 said:


> Why Mature content is always 18, it could be 17 yrs old just like me I'm near 17 and Mature Content shall be for 17+ and adult for 18+


So because you are almost 17, that is when you should be allowed to see it? Well, what about the 14 year olds? They should be allowed too! How avout the 10 year olds?!

Just wait another year. You won't die if you don't get to see furry porn.


----------



## Taralack (Jul 1, 2011)

Zenia said:


> Just wait another year. You won't die if you don't get to see furry porn.


 
If you're really clever you'll find other means to look at it anyway.


----------



## ArielMT (Jul 1, 2011)

Edu_Madriaga06 said:


> Why Mature content is always 18, it could be 17 yrs old just like me I'm near 17 and Mature Content shall be for 17+ and adult for 18+


 
Not in the nation the site's hosted in.


----------



## Eevee (Jul 2, 2011)

Accountability said:


> Because the law says 18.


The indecency parts of that law were struck down years ago.

I'm actually not aware of a law that specifically prohibits letting a minor request and view sexually explicit anything from a public website.


----------



## Edu_Madriaga06 (Jul 3, 2011)

Just look at ESRB, it says MATURE 17+ rather than 18+ in PEGI


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Jul 3, 2011)

Edu_Madriaga06 said:


> Just look at ESRB, it says MATURE 17+ rather than 18+ in PEGI



That's video games; this is a website. Argue all you want, but fA can't change the law.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 3, 2011)

Edu_Madriaga06 said:


> Just look at ESRB, it says MATURE 17+ rather than 18+ in PEGI


 
What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Zenia (Jul 3, 2011)

Edu_Madriaga06 said:


> Just look at ESRB, it says MATURE 17+ rather than 18+ in PEGI


Translation: BUT I WANNA LOOK AT PORN! BAAW BAW BAWWWWW!!!!! T^T


----------



## Eevee (Jul 3, 2011)

Nightfire Tiger said:


> That's video games; this is a website. Argue all you want, but fA can't change the law.


_Which law?_  Man I'm dying to know this but nobody has ever been able to answer.


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Jul 3, 2011)

Eevee said:


> _Which law?_  Man I'm dying to know this but nobody has ever been able to answer.



Good question. Are you asking if there's an official government law? I just based my comment off the fact that, as it seems by law, he has to be 18 to view Mature content. If not law of the government, then it IS in the Terms of Service of fA when you sign up to agree that you must be 18 years old to view mature content. So regardless, coming to us with his problem on the forum, we cannot change the TOS, therefore he still needs to wait to turn 18 to view mature content.

Although why he can't wait less than a year is beyond me.


----------



## Accountability (Jul 3, 2011)

Eevee said:


> _Which law?_  Man I'm dying to know this but nobody has ever been able to answer.


 
the law of Concerned Mothers who will sue for something if she finds out 17-year-old little Timmy is looking at rubber hermaphrodite wolves being violated by tentacles.


----------



## Sax (Jul 7, 2011)

Are erect cocks on a ref sheet mature or adult content? I really thought the latter but when I filed a TT for that I was answered it was just nudity so it was ok to be tagged as mature.
But now I'm really confused about the distinction. The only thing I could say is because since it's a ref sheet, it's artistic nudity?


----------



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Jul 9, 2011)

Sax said:


> Are erect cocks on a ref sheet mature or adult content? I really thought the latter but when I filed a TT for that I was answered it was just nudity so it was ok to be tagged as mature.
> But now I'm really confused about the distinction. The only thing I could say is because since it's a ref sheet, it's artistic nudity?


 I totally don't get that one. As far as single character images, an erect cock is about as adult as adult gets.


----------



## Sax (Jul 10, 2011)

Yeah I'm having a big WTF.
It's this pic btw:
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/6072726/

I've been confused as hell for months about the mature/adult difference, and this is not helping me categorizing my own pics. I usually just slap adult on them to be on the safe side.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 10, 2011)

Sax said:


> Yeah I'm having a big WTF.
> It's this pic btw:
> https://www.furaffinity.net/view/6072726/
> 
> I've been confused as hell for months about the mature/adult difference, and this is not helping me categorizing my own pics. I usually just slap adult on them to be on the safe side.


 ugh
that character

what


----------



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Jul 12, 2011)

Sax said:


> Yeah I'm having a big WTF.
> It's this pic btw:
> https://www.furaffinity.net/view/6072726/
> 
> I've been confused as hell for months about the mature/adult difference, and this is not helping me categorizing my own pics. I usually just slap adult on them to be on the safe side.


 That should definitely be marked 'Adult'. More than one instance of an erect penis.


----------



## Siaraelle (Jul 13, 2011)

On topic, what about the masked nudity that's so common on reference sheets? Should that even be mature? (No nipples or genitalia, but no clothing either).


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 13, 2011)

Siaraelle said:


> On topic, what about the masked nudity that's so common on reference sheets? Should that even be mature? (No nipples or genitalia, but no clothing either).


 
If the dangly bits are out, it is mature.
If there are no dangly bits on the ref sheet, then it classifies as General.


----------



## Retino W. Petros (Jul 16, 2011)

Well, my question is why do you want to view porn in the first place? I see no point in it. 

Second, I don't think it actually is a law that you must be 18 years old or older to view this kind of art. Accoring to other references, it says you are not allowed to post porn on the World Wide Web, if I am correct. If you asking why nobody gets in trouble for it, it is because they first don't know who the person is or don't really care much anymore, unless the site Terms & Conditions say other wise.

I just don't see the point of viewing porn. I think it is gross.


----------



## Dr. Durr (Jul 16, 2011)

Retino W. Petros said:


> Well, my question is why do you want to view porn in the first place? I see no point in it.
> 
> Second, I don't think it actually is a law that you must be 18 years old or older to view this kind of art. Accoring to other references, it says you are not allowed to post porn on the World Wide Web, if I am correct. If you asking why nobody gets in trouble for it, it is because they first don't know who the person is or don't really care much anymore, unless the site Terms & Conditions say other wise.
> 
> I just don't see the point of viewing porn. I think it is gross.


 
1. You necro'd.
2. US Law dosen't allow porn to minors.


----------



## Retino W. Petros (Jul 16, 2011)

Dr. Durr said:


> 1. You necro'd.
> 2. US Law dosen't allow porn to minors.


1. I did not know this thread died.

2. That is what I said.


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Jul 16, 2011)

Dr. Durr said:


> 1. You necro'd.


 
It's only been three days since the last post..is that considered necro?


----------



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Jul 19, 2011)

Nightfire Tiger said:


> It's only been three days since the last post..is that considered necro?


 No, three days is most certainly NOT considered 'dead'. In response to Retino's post, I don't see why it's necessary to state that you don't like viewing porn. That's analogous to saying that you dislike riding the bus, while ON the bus.  (The metaphorical bus would be FA, in this case)


----------



## Folgrimeo (Jul 19, 2011)

My criteria is:
General - Whatever doesn't fall into the latter two categories.
Mature - Nudity without sexual intent ("casual nudity"), implied sex acts, light sexual references, sex of any explicitness that is romantic, aroused genitalia suggestion seen beneath clothing, blood, zombies
Adult - Every other kind of sex, death, stuff I find disgusting

Since everyone's different in how they distinguish the three categories, at times the ratings are pointless. Combine that with how zombies are usually marked as clean, and there is definitely a case for the FA minimum age to be... I think 13. It's also fun to check out a commission original and the commissionee's version, as the tags and even the rating can change between the two despite being the same exact picture.

Here's a couple examples of extremes:
Krystal holding her assets, rated clean
Rabbit in a bikini, rated adult


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 19, 2011)

Silverwolfoneofmany said:


> No, three days is most certainly NOT considered 'dead'. In response to Retino's post, I don't see why it's necessary to state that you don't like viewing porn. That's analogous to saying that you dislike riding the bus, while ON the bus.  (The metaphorical bus would be FA, in this case)


 you sir, needs to be smacked when statistics show that FA is more General than mature and porn combined STILL so its more towards hating sitting at the back of the bus while still being able to sit in the front seats.


----------



## BRN (Jul 19, 2011)

Retino W. Petros said:


> Well, my question is why do you want to view porn in the first place? I see no point in it.
> 
> I just don't see the point of viewing porn. I think it is gross.


 
Because I'm desensitized to the point where the only way I can feel strong aesthetic emotion is to consider art that already contains strong emotions in itself, including, in the main part, passion.

What's gross about it?


----------



## FlynnCoyote (Jul 19, 2011)

Well, I`d consider it adult if it contained nudity, or to be specific, _humanoid _nudity. Also the extremes of violence and graphic death. 

Mature I would recommend for concepts such as heavy violence and coarse language, the kind you`d see in an M(15+) rated movie. 

General would class as anything else. 

I am using the Australian classification system to compare this to, so apologies in advance if it doesn`t match your reference. I would also add that my own preference is mature art, because I like to write about Scifi and the like and generally violence is inevitable in those settings.


----------



## Eske (Jul 19, 2011)

So... regarding the OP, has anyone noticed that FA now actually lists what constitutes Mature/Adult when submitting an image?



> *General*                                                     Content suitable for all-ages.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's still pretty vague, but it's something.


----------



## Sekhmet_Pyralis (Jul 19, 2011)

What about sheaths? I guess that counts as artistic nudity and needs to be marked as mature, even if there are no "pink bits" sticking out?


----------



## Eske (Jul 19, 2011)

Sekhmet_Pyralis said:


> What about sheaths? I guess that counts as artistic nudity and needs to be marked as mature, even if there are no "pink bits" sticking out?


 
Flaccid genitalia (including sheaths) would fall under artistic nudity.  Erect genitalia would fall under sexually explicit.  So yes, it would be mature.


----------



## Sekhmet_Pyralis (Jul 19, 2011)

Eske said:


> Flaccid genitalia (including sheaths) would fall under artistic nudity.  Erect genitalia would fall under sexually explicit.  So yes, it would be mature.


 
Righto, Thanks!


----------



## BRN (Jul 19, 2011)

Eske said:


> Flaccid genitalia (including sheaths) would fall under artistic nudity.  Erect genitalia would fall under sexually explicit.  So yes, it would be mature.


 
Do sheaths really count as flaccid genitalia? That's akin to saying the lips represent the tounge.


----------



## Rinz (Jul 19, 2011)

SIX said:


> Do sheaths really count as flaccid genitalia? That's akin to saying the lips represent the tounge.


 
It should be safe to assume that if it's in the sheath, it's not erect, unless there's like, pink bits poking out and stuff.


----------



## BRN (Jul 19, 2011)

Rinz said:


> It should be safe to assume that if it's in the sheath, it's not erect, unless there's like, pink bits poking out and stuff.



Fair point well made. What I mean, though, is that the sheath is natural form. It's not genitalia of itself, flaccid or otherwise; its inclusion might represent or imply genitalia, but it doesn't have any mature connotations at all when not represented in a mature fashion.


----------



## Rinz (Jul 19, 2011)

SIX said:


> Fair point well made. What I mean is, though, is the sheath is natural form. It's not genitalia of itself, flaccid or otherwise; its inclusion might represent or imply genitalia, but it doesn't have any mature connotations at all when not represented in a mature fashion.


 
A large amount of furs equate the sheath with the human foreskin. With that in mind, it could very well be considered the genitalia or at least a portion thereof.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 19, 2011)

SIX said:


> Fair point well made. What I mean, though, is that the sheath is natural form. It's not genitalia of itself, flaccid or otherwise; its inclusion might represent or imply genitalia, but it doesn't have any mature connotations at all when not represented in a mature fashion.


 
Find a non-sexual drawing that has a sheathe, yet no balls, and we'll talk.


----------



## Melazzee (Jul 19, 2011)

deviantART- Yes, it would need to be mature tagged.
Furaffinity-It should be mature tagged however it seems the artist refused to do that... but fA won't really care since... from my personal experience anyways... most of the people there are after naked animal people anyways, 13 and 80 year olds alike.


----------



## Grandpriest (Jul 24, 2011)

Oh, what as shock that the artist just so happens to be _that _person ... as if.  She's somethin' else. :/
I still don't understand how you can scam people out of money and be so popular.  Only reason I can think of is a combination of the porn and horny furries.  Pathetic.




SIX said:


> Do sheaths really count as flaccid genitalia? That's akin to saying the lips represent the tounge.


Let's put it this way.  When it comes to sticking your tongue out and sticking your penis out, there are vast differences between the two.  The same goes for keeping the tongue in the mouth and keeping the dog's penis in the sheath.  Mouths and tongues are seen everyday by everyone, and a tongue sticking out of the mouth is considered general.  The same cannot be said for the penis (even if you're a nudist, but that's a totally different matter entirely).


----------



## Devious Bane (Jul 25, 2011)

Grandpriest said:


> Let's put it this way.  When it comes to sticking your tongue out and sticking your penis out, there are vast differences between the two.  The same goes for keeping the tongue in the mouth and keeping the dog's penis in the sheath.  Mouths and tongues are seen everyday by everyone, and a tongue sticking out of the mouth is considered general.  The same cannot be said for the penis (even if you're a nudist, but that's a totally different matter entirely).


A small gap in your argument as your stray from talking about sheathes to talking about someone's micropenis. I'm just going to fill that gap.
A _sheathe_ is a more likely sight if you've owned/been around any sort of masculine _*household* pet_(mainly dogs), so this leads some to question whether or not it should count as_ mature _or _adult_ content. In the case of _*anthropomorphic* animals_, it can be as much as one as the other. Since these animals take on more _human forms_, we can/will/must/etc apply _human generics_ such as the fact you don't see someone's genitalia on a daily basis(again, being _general_).


----------



## DragonTalon (Jul 25, 2011)

My opinion is if female nipples are considered adult, then a sheath should be too.  There is no way it's not part of a males sexual anatomy.


----------



## Xenke (Jul 25, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Find a non-sexual drawing that has a sheathe, yet no balls, and we'll talk.



My challenge is still available to anyone who'd like to take it.

Though I'm not sure you'll get very far.

(ps, I'm making a point)


----------



## Sax (Jul 26, 2011)

This one?
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6158611/


----------



## Xenke (Jul 26, 2011)

lolweird.


----------



## Rarakie (Jul 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Not that anyone really cares, but it's also worth mentioning that even by how she's rated submissions before, this is a "mature" piece.
> 
> Which means that she is defending it's "general" rating because she wants more people to bid and make her rich.
> 
> Furries being fickle to try and get money. Shocking. Yea, not really.




I just love how people on this thread think I didn't mark it as mature to get more bids. Do you really think my target selling market is under 18's?

Also if you didn't notice mature and adult submissions GET MORE VIEWS. If I was really that concerned about people viewing my art don't you think I would have put it a rating higher than I thought it should have been? =P

It was obviously my personal opinion that I marked it not mature, one that I have been proven and admit I am wrong about. Obviously my personal thought on the rating didn't mesh with the site regulations and that is why I was more than happy to alter the rating when contacted 

Oh furries ^.^ *pets*


----------



## Xenke (Jul 31, 2011)

I still don't understand why you'd mark that submission general, but you'd mark this and this as mature.

They all have the same level of nudity.


----------



## Rarakie (Jul 31, 2011)

Contrary to popular belief I actually don't think all the much about it, nor should I see why I should be coming up with excuses or arguing/discussing it more when I pretty much fully addressed what happened in my last post.

You must be really used to people arguing with you if, when you get the answer you're wanting, you still expect more of a fight :/


----------



## Xenke (Jul 31, 2011)

Rarakie said:


> nor should I see why I should be coming up with excuses



But you just did...



Rarakie said:


> Contrary to popular belief I actually don't think all the much about it


----------



## TheFruitbat (Jul 31, 2011)

I am 17, and in my country I am legal to have sex, so why is the blocker not regionalised?


----------



## Aleu (Jul 31, 2011)

TheFruitbat said:


> I am 17, and in my country I am legal to have sex, so why is the blocker not regionalised?


That's not how the laws work. It may be legal for you but the site has to follow country of origin's laws iirc.


----------



## TheFruitbat (Jul 31, 2011)

Fair enough. It's irksome, but can't really argue with that.


----------



## Volkodav (Jul 31, 2011)

SIX said:
			
		

> Do sheaths really count as flaccid genitalia? That's akin to saying the lips represent the tounge.


We are allowed to show children pictures of our lips
We are not allowed to show children pictures of our flaccid cocks.

I wonder why.


----------



## Sax (Jul 31, 2011)

Being able to have sex legally and being able to view porn legally are not the same thing though. (ex: here in france age of consent is 15, but to view porn you must be 18 )


----------



## Radiohead (Jul 31, 2011)

Sax said:


> Being able to have sex legally and being able to view porn legally are not the same thing though. (ex: here in france age of consent is 15, but to view porn you must be 18)


In France, ve must vear sunglasses to look at porn. Eet iz de law.


----------



## Sax (Jul 31, 2011)

-


----------



## Rarakie (Jul 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> But you just did...



What was it?


----------



## Xenke (Jul 31, 2011)

Rarakie said:


> What was it?



Point: But you marked other similar submissions as mature.
Excuse: I don't really think about it.


----------



## Rarakie (Aug 1, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Point: But you marked other similar submissions as mature.
> Excuse: I don't really think about it.



[h=3]_exÂ·cuse_/ikËˆskyoÍžoz/[/h]Verb: Attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.

"I don't really think about it" is *what happened*. You asked me why it happened and I told you.

If I was using it as an excuse however, I would have tried to justify it by saying something like "I don't think about it *and there for I am not in the wrong*"

Because I said what happened, but did not try to use it to justify, I am not making an excuse.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 1, 2011)

An argument based on semantics is classy. Oh wait, the other one, "foolish".

Would you like it better if instead of the part about excuses, I pointed out the "should I see why I should be [...] discussing it more"? It doesn't really matter, as the point of that post was to say "I don't have to explain myself to you" while simultaneously doing exactly that.

Regardless, I don't even understand why you're bringing it up after over a month. I had honestly forgotten about this whole thing because there are frankly bigger concerns that I've dealt with since then. I don't think anyone else at this point really cares either.

I think to sum up what I'm trying to say, I'll just say this:






_Deal with it._


----------



## Rarakie (Aug 2, 2011)

Xenke said:


> An argument based on semantics is classy. Oh wait, the other one, "foolish".
> 
> Would you like it better if instead of the part about excuses, I pointed out the "should I see why I should be [...] discussing it more"? It doesn't really matter, as the point of that post was to say "I don't have to explain myself to you" while simultaneously doing exactly that.
> 
> ...



You make me laugh =P thanks for the lulz dude!


----------



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Aug 3, 2011)

It is interesting how this thread has traveled. I personally think the issue has resolved itself.


----------



## Judge (Aug 6, 2011)

Sexually explicit artwork is "mature." Nude artwork should not be catagorized as such. Who cares if the children see it? It's a naked person.


----------



## Grandpriest (Aug 7, 2011)

Why is this thread still here?  It's already obvious to everyone with half a mind that she's manipulative, so just let her do her thing, and laugh at anyone gullible enough to believe the crap that spills out of her mouth.
/thread


----------



## Eske (Aug 7, 2011)

Grandpriest said:


> Why is this thread still here?  It's already obvious to everyone with half a mind that she's manipulative, so just let her do her thing, and laugh at anyone gullible enough to believe the crap that spills out of her mouth.
> /thread



The thread is still here because the topic still somewhat pertains to other people as well, not just the user mentioned in the OP.  Many people would like clearer guidelines on what constitutes mature or adult artwork, so discussions and opinions on the topic are common.  Not to say that these are particularly productive or even informative, but it's not as if the discussion ends because one instance of mismarked mature-content is solved.

Also, even after all that's said and done, the thread was slowly dying on it's own.  It always confounds me that people who scoff at a thread's persistence in surviving insist on posting in said thread, thus bumping it up and only making it last longer...


----------



## Silverwolfoneofmany (Aug 7, 2011)

Judge said:


> Sexually explicit artwork is "mature." Nude artwork should not be catagorized as such. Who cares if the children see it? It's a naked person.



That flies in the face of common logic. I wouldn't want _my_ children to see a naked person at a young age!

Nude artwork certainly does *NOT* belong in the 'General' category, if that is indeed what you are suggesting.


----------



## Grandpriest (Aug 7, 2011)

Eske said:


> Also, even after all that's said and done, the thread was slowly dying on it's own.  It always confounds me that people who scoff at a thread's persistence in surviving insist on posting in said thread, thus bumping it up and only making it last longer...


I posted when the thread was at the top of the list, so *surely* you wouldn't mean me.


----------



## Soline (Aug 14, 2011)

'Mature' is anything remotely indecent, I think the bigger issue is 'What consitutes 'adult' content'

I've always gone for 'General' as being the stuff you'd show a non-furry. The "Dog's playing cards - Anthropic edition" and suchlike, no suggestive-ness (a flexible area) and no nudity at all.
Mature for me has always been the furry equivalent on stuff you'll see in the Tate and Lourve etc. Tasteful nudity and suggestive themes for the purposes of a scene rather than to look 'sexy'. The furry versions of Marilyn Monroe and Dita Von Teese.
And everything else has been Adult, the porn and sex and fetishes....so most of FA


----------

