{"views":["
\"Kukadoba\"<\/a>
Kukadoba<\/a> \u2013 196223<\/a><\/small><\/header>

In the first option there is no direct demonstration of sexual attributes. In the second one, I don't understand what could be embarrassing at all. Can you explain your choice?<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Trevbloom\"<\/a>
Trevbloom<\/a> \u2013 196225<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Kukadoba<\/a> #1 one of the girls with white clothing kinda has her areola showing through. #2 She's in skimpy clothes and standing in a way to have her ass visible.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Kukadoba\"<\/a>
Kukadoba<\/a> \u2013 196237<\/a><\/small><\/header>

If the first one can still be understood, the second one does not seem correct to me. Here are some almost identical cases, but they are not considered sketchy, which I agree with.\n

\"loading\"<\/a>
1000 x 2000<\/span>98<\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/div><\/figure>
\"loading\"<\/a>
6920 x 8238<\/span>54<\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/div><\/figure>
\"loading\"<\/a>
1920 x 2754<\/span>60<\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/div><\/figure>
\"loading\"<\/a>
1736 x 2456<\/span>64<\/i><\/a><\/i><\/a><\/div><\/figure><\/p><\/div><\/article>","
\"Trevbloom\"<\/a>
Trevbloom<\/a> \u2013 196275<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Kukadoba<\/a> I changed 2 of them to sketchy since "I" consider them to qualify since one's "upskirt" and the other seems slightly underdressed. The other 2, they're fully clothed and aren't doing anything sexually appealing. 1 is just walking, albeit, a view from behind, but there's no emphasis on her body and she's fully covered. The other I agree it's SFW, there isn't any indication of anything, she's fully clothed and isn't in any provocative position. Ratings can be subjective but yea.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"Kukadoba\"<\/a>
Kukadoba<\/a> \u2013 196281<\/a><\/small><\/header>

Okay, it doesn't really matter to me. Going forward, I will continue to rely on my own understanding and Danbooru's documentation<\/a> as the most elaborate and logical one I know. I hope this will not be a problem.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","