This is what I was thinking of, when I said that the "unwritten rules" of fandom vary according to the fan in question. Ratcreature commented next to her link that the images on the BiC page were "obviously NSFW" and I would agree. In the culture I live in, none of those images are safe for work, and the first one is pretty explicit to me. And I think you're right that the "standards of what is and what isn't explicit might be different."
Actually, the one that seems explicit to you doesn't seem all that explicit to me, since they're only kissing (which the policy says does not fall into the "explicit" category) and they're shown from the waist up. But that's me.
We're not really interested in policing images, and we do ask editors to use their best judgment. In practice, I think that the examples that Ratcreature links to, and that you point out might be judged differently by different people, point to something we hadn't considered: an image might not depict any sexual activity, and yet still be sexually explicit, as the first MiC image is, from my POV. And certainly such an image might be NSFW, which could be a consideration for many users who are looking at the pages in a place where they need to avoid NSFW images.
We might want to edit the wording of the policy to invite editors to consider whether an image might be NSFW even if no action is happening in the image, and thus they might want to use the image summary for explicit images even when only one person is in the image. And in practice, the committee wouldn't know (or be asked about whether the "explicit" image template ought to be used) for a particular image unless a user made a complaint to us about it.
no subject
Actually, the one that seems explicit to you doesn't seem all that explicit to me, since they're only kissing (which the policy says does not fall into the "explicit" category) and they're shown from the waist up. But that's me.
We're not really interested in policing images, and we do ask editors to use their best judgment. In practice, I think that the examples that Ratcreature links to, and that you point out might be judged differently by different people, point to something we hadn't considered: an image might not depict any sexual activity, and yet still be sexually explicit, as the first MiC image is, from my POV. And certainly such an image might be NSFW, which could be a consideration for many users who are looking at the pages in a place where they need to avoid NSFW images.
We might want to edit the wording of the policy to invite editors to consider whether an image might be NSFW even if no action is happening in the image, and thus they might want to use the image summary for explicit images even when only one person is in the image. And in practice, the committee wouldn't know (or be asked about whether the "explicit" image template ought to be used) for a particular image unless a user made a complaint to us about it.