Seriously?
 
A simple recolor suddenly makes it okay?

Hoominz.

How about we dont link content that was previously deleted from the site?
 
Jesus.

@Vinylshadow  
Yes. I have the original saved and it is also linked in a comment further down.

Didn’t anyone save the original?

@Charzoid  
that is incorrect sir, the dock is the part of the skin that the tail hairs come out from, not the butt

I’m glad this is at least acknowledging that cutie marks are on the hips when they mention flanks. A lot of people keep commenting on flanks as if that means their butts but the butt of a horse is called a dock.

@SuppliedRelic  
It’s plain comical how much drama and legal action could take place over such a miniscule distinction…
 
Sexuality is in the eye of the beholder. Even if they were in their undies striking poses I’d just see it as kids being silly. But you could put them in a burkha and there are still people who’d get off to it.
 
I’ve argued for things to be tagged questionable before when they were plain gross/indecent, but sexual is a wholly different matter.
 
Lol, pretty sure I recall a supreme court justice who was asked to give a strict definition of porn, and said; “I’ll know it when I see it.”
 
 
@Liggliluff  
Oh my gosh! I see it now! Thank you so much! XD

@Liggliluff  
Those are definitely shorts.

@Cirrus Light  
I’m pretty sure that’s the design of the shirt. The “tucked down” part is just the bottom rim attached to the shirt.

@untraceablelarry, @Cirrus Light  
Pretty safe to say that those are shorts?

Wow, that changed so much… Now they have purple underwear that goes a tiny bit further than before. Why was the original even deleted, especially if this was allowed to stay?

@RIG  
Lolol, well, with how short shorts have gotten in recent years, it’s impossible to prove that underpants aren’t shorts :p

@Background Pony #876E  
Someone already post it, with a Imgur link.

@Cyborg_pony  
want

Good thing I saved the original.

All of this censorship of Racoonkun art is really annoying…

UK’s law doesn’t care about the panty’s color, they care if the pic is a human kid, hell, even pics where the human kid is not the sexualized one and just a BG element trigger that stupid law.

I see this… And, can only think of that

@Background Pony #4EB1  
Lolol. Makes absolutely no difference to me since I thought that even this “edited” picture was their underwear. Just, you know, purple underwear instead of white. Though I do suddenly notice the oddity that Scoots’ shirt was tucked into her underpants instead of her pants :q
 
…Heh. I’m glad I’m this innocent in regards to children. There’s a point of perversion to where you’re not bothered by kids in their underwear, where someone has killed their conscience.
 
And then there’s me, sitting at the point where the conscience is silent because I don’t even get any negative connotation from it to bother my conscience in the first place… I think I’d like to stay this way :q

The original picture has been 【Ｅ＊Ｄ＊Ｉ＊Ｔ】 for a GOOOOOOOOOD reason

@dt  
Not exactly.

Third time this has been posted.

@Cirrus Light  
I never thought about this like that. I agree, shoulder feels like it would better.  
But of course, then we wouldn’t have pictures like this.