[quote=@Jig]
<Snipped quote by Ruby>

What is 'sexually graphic' in literary terms and how far is 'overly' sexually suggestive? In visual media, it's pretty clear: if you see genitalia in a sexual context, or people actually engaged in intercourse visible on-screen, it's sexual content, but it doesn't translate.

A film would get a very different rating for showing two people hard at it on a bed than if one of those characters recalled "I remember the time [Mary-Jane] and I were hard at it on a bed", but, in writing, there's actually very little difference in terms of what appears on the page in the context of:

[indent][Billy-Bob] and [Mary-Jane] were hard at it on a bed.

"[Billy-Bob] and [Mary-Jane] were hard at it on a bed," said [Barbara-Anne Third-Person].[/indent]

I presume that the latter is acceptable, while the first is not. But then, where are we left with genitalia in general? Genitalia appearing in visual media are not always considered 'sexual'; in the context of a medical documentary, for example. This would not get the same rating as genitalia in an overtly sexual context.

I feel like some clearer guidelines, if we have any, would be useful.

[/completely aware that this is a discussion about how members feel about use of 'smut' but it's a legit question and seemed relevant-ish]
[/quote]

I'm sure [@HeySeuss] will follow this up, as the policy drafter, but I'll say if you have to wonder whether something [i][b]might[/b][/i] cross that line...don't let it see the light of day.

Use your common sense. If your common sense is broken, PM the questionable bit of writing to a Mod, and we'll use our common sense to make the determination for you.