freedom-of-fanfic:

doubt it. it’s not really about skin tone per se – more like out-and-out race.

when an America-based, corporate company starts talking about ‘allows tasteful nudes’ but ‘does not allow sexually arousing nudes’, you have to think about what they’ll count as depicting something to arouse vs depicting something because ‘art’. because that standard is – despite what some would like to say – absolutely a matter of interpretation, which means somebody is going to have to sit at tumblr headquarters interpreting nudes all day.

historically speaking – in America, mind, I have no damn clue about elsewhere – images of cis female Latinx, Black, First Nations, and East Asian bodies are far more likely to be perceived as intended to arouse than images of cis female white bodies. this is partially because white bodies are ‘default’ and therefore seen as effect neutral (whether tanned or not, by the way), partially because of our ugly history of racism, slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, and partially because of the interactions of economic situations, race/cultural background, and sex work. 

so if you present a white person and a non-white person in artsy nudity, in the same pose and with the same camera angle, it’s more likely the non-white person will be flagged as intended to sexually arouse.*

is it possible that a white person who sufficiently tans will be mistaken for a brown person, or a brown person who is sufficiently pale will be mistaken for a white person? yes, because race isn’t a clear-cut thing (and it’s pretty racist to imply it is). but overall, I promise you the n sfw ban will have more negative consequences for non-white people than white people, and any artist who depicts non-white people.

*the joke is: even well-intentioned activists will potentially flag images of non-white people more than white people on suspicion of exploitation/exploitative imagery. (this is what happens when activism doesn’t center the decisions and voices of people it’s supposed to be advocating for.)