I assume the explicit ones in that category would get the "explicit" warning and you could see in the image description what kind of explicit it is, judging by the templates christycorr showed in her comment, and then you could avoid enlarging explicit incest or slash images but click on explicit het BDSM or whatever does not squick you.
I don't imagine that people uploading on fanlore will start to single out say tame BDSM (like someone clothed but wearing a collar, as you might just as well see as fashion statement anywhere) and lump it with "vanilla" explicit in some kind of anti-BDSM double standard, where any BDSM counts as explicit but only het genital-showing sex or something. Much less that the policy's intent is to enforce something like that to avoid potential upset. Similarly I assume that the graphicness and explicitness of any pairing will be judged the same as het, and someone seeing and incest fanzine cover that shows two siblings holding hands won't be too traumatized, as the picture on its own could just as well be non-incest if it wasn't on an incest zine.
What I could see a problem with is to decide how much the "mood" of a picture influences whether you count it as "explicit" rather than a strictly factual check of "do we see uncovered genitalia?", "do we see sex of the tab A goes in slot B type?" etc. If we go with the latter an image like this cover would get no warning, because it shows no sex or even touching, and the genitalia are covered. It does however show fetish wear, and not as an accessory. And it is widespread that people may find a fetish gear/bondage picture with covered genitalia actually more pornographic than a art nude drawing with a visible flaccid penis.
Actually I'm not completely clear on how the draft wants to treat plain full nudity witjout sex. It only talks about sexual activity, but obviously if I just have a naked figure drawing there's nothing inherently sexual about it.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
I don't imagine that people uploading on fanlore will start to single out say tame BDSM (like someone clothed but wearing a collar, as you might just as well see as fashion statement anywhere) and lump it with "vanilla" explicit in some kind of anti-BDSM double standard, where any BDSM counts as explicit but only het genital-showing sex or something. Much less that the policy's intent is to enforce something like that to avoid potential upset. Similarly I assume that the graphicness and explicitness of any pairing will be judged the same as het, and someone seeing and incest fanzine cover that shows two siblings holding hands won't be too traumatized, as the picture on its own could just as well be non-incest if it wasn't on an incest zine.
What I could see a problem with is to decide how much the "mood" of a picture influences whether you count it as "explicit" rather than a strictly factual check of "do we see uncovered genitalia?", "do we see sex of the tab A goes in slot B type?" etc. If we go with the latter an image like this cover would get no warning, because it shows no sex or even touching, and the genitalia are covered. It does however show fetish wear, and not as an accessory. And it is widespread that people may find a fetish gear/bondage picture with covered genitalia actually more pornographic than a art nude drawing with a visible flaccid penis.
Actually I'm not completely clear on how the draft wants to treat plain full nudity witjout sex. It only talks about sexual activity, but obviously if I just have a naked figure drawing there's nothing inherently sexual about it.