>>4171860>>revealing or sexualized clothing Again, a means not a definition. The wikipedia article you just linked has in the definition (!) terms like "playful sexual action", "dirty" and "lascivious behavior" in it. Nothing applies to a nude body per se. When you open the wikipedia page "Human", there is a photograph of a fully naked female with visible genitals in it, yet there is nothing eroctic about it. Am I blurring the lines between pornography and science here?
Granted, a picture of a nude girl can very quickly become lewd, even a small detail could tilt it in that direction. For example, if it was implied that the pov is another person in the room you could say that's a voyeuristic touch, making it erotic. But as it is now, no.
>>4171864>which the rules clearly state that it's not, but reading is hardwhere?
