Assessed but not listed
ClickTug lists 37 tools. It has screened 405 and assessed 59 of them by hand. This page is the other side of that number: what we checked, what we found, and where each finding came from.
- Screened
- 405
- Publish a price
- 33%
- Publish a privacy policy
- 54%
- Publish a position on minors
- 12%
How to read this page
Most of these are not criticisms. 6 of the 22 vendors below are absent because a required policy could not be quoted at a stable address, and one more because we could not establish enough either way. Those are facts about web pages, and each of those vendors could be listed here next month by changing one thing.
The rest are different, and they are separated for that reason. Where a finding belongs to somebody else, it is attributed to them and linked. ClickTug reports that a named publication or a public incident record documented something. It does not restate the underlying claim as its own finding.
Every assessment carries the date it was made. They go stale like any other fact on this site, and a vendor that has changed since is entitled to say so.
Policies could not be cited
The required policies either do not exist at a stable address, or are served in a way that cannot be quoted or archived. A listing records what a vendor published and links to it, so a policy that cannot be linked cannot support a listing.
SpicyChat
The privacy policy renders entirely in the browser and serves no readable text to anything that does not execute JavaScript, which means it cannot be cited, quoted or archived. Every price ClickTug could find appeared on review sites rather than on spicychat.ai. A listing here records what a vendor published and links to it, and neither was possible.
What would change the answerServe the policy pages as readable text, and publish prices on the site rather than leaving them to third parties.
Assessed 7 Aug 2026
Perchance generators
Genuinely interesting for this directory: free, no signup, and nothing stored, which is a stronger privacy position than any hosted vendor listed here offers. It is a community generator platform rather than a vendor, so there is no acceptable use policy and no minor safety statement at any URL that could be cited. ClickTug requires both, and weakening that requirement to admit one otherwise appealing tool is the wrong trade.
What would change the answerPublish an acceptable use policy and a minor safety statement at stable URLs.
Assessed 7 Aug 2026
ChatSweetie
A terms page exists and there is nothing in it to cite. Section 4 asks users not to misuse the website, violate laws or infringe the rights of others, and that is the whole of the content rules: no prohibition on depicting minors, no rule about real people, no refund terms, no legal entity and no governing law. ClickTug requires an acceptable use policy stating what a service prohibits, and one that forbids only illegality in general states nothing specific to an adult product. The pricing contradicts itself too: the homepage advertises a free, unlimited chat platform while the pricing page charges a credit per chat and offers no free tier.
What would change the answerPublish an acceptable use policy naming what the service prohibits, name the operating company and its governing law, and reconcile the free claim on the homepage with the credit pricing.
Assessed 9 Aug 2026
Janitor AI
One of the largest character chat platforms in this category and repeatedly requested. Its terms and privacy policy are reachable inside the application but not at any addressable URL: every path on the domain returns the same single-page shell, and the policy links carry no destination in the rendered page at all. A rendering pass in August 2026 confirmed this rather than a simple fetch failure. ClickTug requires a citable privacy and acceptable use document, so there is nothing to quote or date. Characters promoted on the homepage include school-setting scenarios, submitted by users rather than written by the vendor, and recorded here as an observation not a finding.
What would change the answerPublishing terms and a privacy policy at addressable URLs that return their own content. The documents appear to exist; only their addressing is the problem.
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
PepHop AI
Every path on the domain returns the same single-page shell, byte for byte: the homepage, /terms, /privacy and /terms-of-service are one document. A rendering pass in August 2026 confirmed it, so this is the site's design and not a fetch problem. Nothing can be quoted or dated, which is what ClickTug requires. Two things were observed directly and are recorded because a reader would want them: the interface runs a countdown presented as a deadline, and characters listed on the homepage include ones describing themselves as 18 while set in a school. Both are user-submitted or interface behaviour rather than vendor policy statements.
What would change the answerServing the terms and privacy policy at their own URLs rather than returning the application shell at every path.
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
Agnai
An open source character chat front end with a hosted service, and the kind of project this directory would like to cover. Its interface names a terms of service and a privacy policy, but neither carries a link destination in the rendered page, and every path on the domain returns the same shell. A rendering pass in August 2026 found no addressable URL for either document. Nothing adverse was found; there is simply nothing citable to record, and ClickTug does not list a vendor on documents it cannot quote.
What would change the answerServing the terms and privacy policy at addressable URLs. For an open source project these may already exist in the repository, which would be citable.
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
Outside what this directory covers
Not a rejection. These are services that turned out not to be NSFW AI tools by their own current terms.
Civitai
No longer a candidate rather than a rejection. Civitai publishes prices openly and has substantial policy documentation, but its terms of service now prohibit pornography and other mature content depicting nudity or explicit sexual acts. A site that prohibits adult content is not an NSFW AI tool, whatever it was previously. Unrestricted use moved to a separate domain, which blocks automated access and has not been assessed.
What would change the answerNot applicable. The main site is out of scope by its own terms, and the separate adult domain would need assessing on its own merits.
Assessed 8 Aug 2026
OpenRouter
Reassessed on 9 August 2026 after ClickTug dropped the minor safety policy requirement that had previously excluded it, and it turns out not to need that rule to fail. OpenRouter is a routing layer that sells access to third party models, and its own terms say some models may store or train on inputs while others do not, with the applicable rules set by each provider. A listing here records one price, one retention position and one content policy. None of those is a single fact for OpenRouter: they depend on which model a reader happens to route to, which is the same reason a GPU rental service is not an NSFW AI tool.
What would change the answerNothing OpenRouter could reasonably publish would change this. It is a good product in a category this directory does not cover.
Assessed 9 Aug 2026
PixAI
Reassessed on 9 August 2026 after ClickTug made pricing optional, which had been the stated reason for excluding it. That gap is real and no longer disqualifying: the membership page names tiers without stating what any costs, pointing to blog posts instead. Scope decides it now. PixAI's own guidelines state that sensitive content made with realistic models is not allowed, and that flagged adult content is visible only to the account that made it. It is an anime art platform that tolerates stylised adult work under restriction rather than an adult AI tool, and a reader who wants stylised output for their own use may reasonably think we drew that line in the wrong place.
What would change the answerPublishing tier prices on the membership page would remove the smaller problem. The scope question is a product decision rather than a documentation one, and only PixAI can change it.
Assessed 9 Aug 2026
Aroused
Reached the front of the queue because it offers something almost nobody else does, a demo usable without an account, and its own age gate settles the question before that matters. The gate reads that Aroused is an AI companion platform for adults and that nothing here is explicit. Its terms confirm it, prohibiting attempts to generate explicit sexual content, and separately state the service is in pre-launch early access. A non-explicit companion is not an adult AI tool by this directory's definition, and a pre-launch product has no pricing or filtering behaviour to record. Worth revisiting if it launches and the positioning changes.
What would change the answerShip, and permit explicit content. Neither is a documentation problem and only Aroused can decide either.
Assessed 9 Aug 2026
DGAF
Markets itself as an uncensored AI chat platform with no filters, and its own terms say something different twice over. The prohibited content clause bans material that is obscene or pornographic, which is difficult to reconcile with the product it sits behind. And the age section permits users under 18 with parental or guardian consent, barring only those under 13. A service whose terms contemplate minors using it, and prohibit pornography, is not an adult AI tool by its own account, whatever the marketing says. Worth noting in passing: DGAF Pte Ltd of Singapore offers a 30 day money-back guarantee, which is by some distance the most generous refund term found in this whole exercise.
What would change the answerReconcile the terms with the product: either the pornography prohibition or the uncensored positioning has to go, and the under-18 provision has no place on either.
Assessed 9 Aug 2026
Excluded on safety grounds
The only group here that reflects on the products themselves. Each entry reports findings documented by a named publication or public incident record, linked below it, rather than any conclusion of our own. Two of these vendors publish prices and policies that would otherwise have qualified them.
Nomi
The AI Incident Database records reports that Nomi chatbots produced harmful content including sexual violence involving personas presented as minors. MIT Technology Review separately documented a Nomi companion supplying a user with explicit suicide instructions, and reported that the developer declined to add safety controls, describing them as censorship. Research reported by the same outlet found the service's self-declared age check could be bypassed using a throwaway email address, after which researchers presenting as being under 18 received sexually explicit roleplay. On documentation alone this vendor would have qualified: its prices, terms and privacy policy are all published.
Assessed 8 Aug 2026
Anima
Fortune reported Anima among services on which users engage in sexual roleplay involving characters presented as minors. The same reporting states that a cofounder, shown screenshots of the product roleplaying a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old in a sexual scenario, said the team was working hard on fixing those issues. ClickTug reads an acknowledgement as more significant than a denial would have been.
Assessed 8 Aug 2026
Chai
The AI Incident Database records a case in which a man in Belgium died by suicide after six weeks of conversation with a Chai chatbot which, according to logs supplied by his widow, encouraged him to act. Journalists who tested the app afterwards reported that it offered methods with little prompting and surfaced no crisis resources. This does not fall under ClickTug's absolute exclusions, which concern minors and imagery of real people, so it is an editorial judgement rather than a rule being applied. Chai is also a general companion product rather than an adult one, which made it a marginal fit regardless.
What would change the answerThis is a judgement about a 2023 incident rather than a permanent rule. Evidence of changed crisis handling would reopen it.
Assessed 8 Aug 2026
SoulGen
Screened as the most searched name in the adult video generator category. Its own homepage advertises a feature for producing a character with the face of a real individual from an uploaded reference photograph, presented as a headline capability rather than buried in an options menu. ClickTug does not list tools that build a likeness of a real person into adult material, and the vendor's documentation states no rule on whose photograph may be uploaded.
- SoulGen homepage, read 10 August 2026https://soulgen.ai/not linked
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
DarLink
Screened as the second most searched name in the adult video generator category. One of the characters promoted on its own homepage is written as a school student being pressured into sex by a member of staff, with the coercion described in the character's own published prompt. This is vendor curated promotional content rather than something a user submitted, which is what makes it disqualifying.
- DarLink homepage character cards, read 10 August 2026https://darlink.ai/not linked
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
SpicyGen
The most instructive rejection ClickTug has recorded. Its written policies are the strongest of any candidate assessed this month: uploads are restricted to images that depict no real person, the operator is named with a registration number, and the privacy policy documents biometric screening to detect unauthorised use of a real individual's likeness. Its own promotional gallery then advertises sexual scenarios set in a school classroom, and the terms state no rule about adults presented as younger than 18. A policy is a claim about intent and a gallery is a record of conduct.
- SpicyGen homepage gallery, read 10 August 2026https://spicygen.ai/not linked
- SpicyGen terms of service, read 10 August 2026https://spicygen.ai/termsnot linked
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
JoyFun AI
Screened for the adult video generator category. Its homepage navigation sells removing clothing from a photograph, and transplanting one person's face onto another image, in the same menu as its video tools. Both are workflows this directory refuses outright, and finding them advertised on the front page ended the assessment before the policy documents were read.
- JoyFun AI homepage, read 10 August 2026https://joyfun.ai/not linked
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
Mage.space
Screened for the image generator category. It ships a tool that moves one person's face from one image onto another, listed among its apps, while its terms take no position at all on whose photograph may be used. A capability for transferring a real likeness combined with no rule governing it is the pairing this directory treats as disqualifying, regardless of how the feature is described.
- Mage.space apps listing, read 10 August 2026https://www.mage.space/not linked
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
SeaArt
Screened for the image generator category. Its own homepage copy promotes producing synthetic media of real people by transferring faces, and lists that capability for both images and video as named products. Its documentation addresses none of the questions ClickTug requires: not minors, not the use of a real individual's likeness, not public figures, and not consent. The capability is advertised and the governing rules are absent.
- SeaArt homepage and product listing, read 10 August 2026https://www.seaart.ai/not linked
Assessed 10 Aug 2026
Not enough evidence either way
Neither cleared nor excluded. Recorded openly because a silent omission would be indistinguishable from a judgement we have not actually made.
Paradot
Recorded as unresolved rather than cleared or condemned. Paradot appears in published research examining how companion chatbots respond to a user who states they are a child, but ClickTug could not establish what that research concluded about this product specifically. No published price was found either. Listing it would be unsupported and excluding it would be unfair, so it sits here until one or the other can be established.
What would change the answerPublish a price and a minor safety policy, and the assessment can be completed properly.
Assessed 8 Aug 2026
Uncensored AI (uncensored.com)
Written up as a listing and pulled before publication. Its acceptable use policy is among the strongest read all week, prohibiting anything sexualising minors real or fictional and, unusually, any realistic human face without logged consent. Found Tech LLC publishes a Wyoming address and a 90-day deletion commitment. The product stopped it: the homepage is a model picker offering Claude and Gemini under a definition reading "the most capable AI models, made more truthful and unbiased". That reads as uncensored on bias rather than on sexual content, and those providers filter upstream anyway. We cannot establish from outside whether adult generation is supported.
What would change the answerState plainly whether adult content is permitted and on which models, and publish a price. The policies are already stronger than most listings here.
Assessed 9 Aug 2026
Entries we withdrew
On 9 August 2026 ClickTug stopped requiring a published minor safety policy as a condition of listing. Five entries on this page existed only because of that rule and two others like it, so they were removed rather than left standing under a rule that no longer exists: NovelAI and OpenRouter, which published no position on minors, and Candy AI, EVA AI andPixAI, which published no price we could read.
The reasoning is in our methodology, and it came from our own screening contradicting us. A clothing-removal service in the table below publishes a minor safety policy. A companion app excluded further down this page published one too, along with a price, terms and a privacy policy, and was excluded anyway on what independent testing documented it producing. Meanwhile the two vendors named above publish nothing on the subject and have no adverse record at all.
A policy page is a claim. The record is evidence. The gate now tests the second, and what a vendor publishes about minors appears on its listing as a stated fact, including when the answer is that it publishes nothing. That is more useful to a reader than an absence they never see, and considerably less comfortable for a vendor than being quietly left out.
Services that publish a position on minors
Of 267 services readable to our screen on 8 Aug 2026, 31 said anything at all about minors or child sexual abuse material, anywhere in their terms, community guidelines, acceptable use or content policy. That is 12 percent. 57 services published a price, terms and a privacy policy, and 82 percent of those failed on nothing else.
This is a record, not a recommendation. It means language exists at a URL. It does not mean the policy is good, that anyone enforces it, or that the service is safe, and most of these have never been assessed by us for anything else. Names are listed without links for that reason.
9 further services clear this bar and are deliberately absent below. Eight of them sell, on their own domains, a workflow we refuse at any standard of documentation, and one prohibits pornography in its own terms so is not an adult AI product at all. Seven of the eight were found on 9 August 2026 by reading homepages rather than policy pages, after every one had been named here for a month.
That is the honest lesson of this whole exercise. A policy page describes what a vendor says. A homepage describes what it sells. Only the second is evidence, and every vendor we removed had published the right words the entire time.
| Service | Policy found at | Price readable |
|---|---|---|
| aiangels.io | /terms | Yes |
| aicupid.net | /terms | Not readable |
| aicupid.org | /legal | Not readable |
| enhanceai.art | /terms | Yes |
| erogen.ai | /community-guidelines | Yes |
| erotix.chat | /content-policy | Not readable |
| ezeditor.io | /terms-of-service | Yes |
| funfun.ai | /legal/terms | Not readable |
| girlfriendly.ai | /guidelines | Yes |
| gptgirlfriend.online | /legal/terms | Not readable |
| harpy.chat | /terms | Not readable |
| magicedit.app | /terms-of-service | Not readable |
| nofiltergpt.com | /terms | Not readable |
| nsfwbots.com | /terms | Not readable |
| pygmalion.chat | /terms-of-service | Not readable |
| spicyai.net | /terms | Not readable |
| tipsy.chat | /terms-of-service | Not readable |
| uncensored.chat | /acceptable-use | Yes |
| uncensored.com | /acceptable-use-policy | Not readable |
| unlucid.ai | /terms | Not readable |
| virtugf.com | /terms | Not readable |
| visualizee.ai | /terms-of-service | Not readable |
If you operate one of these services
Write to [email protected]. We will correct anything factually wrong quickly, and we will say what changed and when rather than editing quietly.
If the entry says you publish no price and you now do, tell us and we will reassess. If you believe a sourced finding misrepresents your product, send us what you would like considered and we will publish your response alongside the entry. We would rather carry your side of it than leave a reader with only one.
Removal of a listing is always available on request. That applies to entries on this page as much as to listings in the directory.