post #2769033 and its children.
The longer I stare at the images, the more unsure I am of whether they're loli or not. The breasts are well-developed but the body proportions look strangely prepubescent to me (Imo, at the limit of prepubescence).
Posted under General
post #2769033 and its children.
The longer I stare at the images, the more unsure I am of whether they're loli or not. The breasts are well-developed but the body proportions look strangely prepubescent to me (Imo, at the limit of prepubescence).
CodeKyuubi said:
post #2769033 and its children.
The longer I stare at the images, the more unsure I am of whether they're loli or not. The breasts are well-developed but the body proportions look strangely prepubescent to me (Imo, at the limit of prepubescence).
It's a bit uncanny to pin it down since it seems to be a mix of prepubescent and adolescent. Sometimes it helps to come up with an age for a character, and in this case I'll venture to say 12 and so I say it's loli. Sans the breasts I think it would be easier to say loli, so it just looks like oppai loli to me. On the other hand the muscles of the abdomen and her height seem pretty developed.
CodeKyuubi said:
post #2769033 and its children.
The longer I stare at the images, the more unsure I am of whether they're loli or not. The breasts are well-developed but the body proportions look strangely prepubescent to me (Imo, at the limit of prepubescence).
chinatsu said:
It's a bit uncanny to pin it down since it seems to be a mix of prepubescent and adolescent. Sometimes it helps to come up with an age for a character, and in this case I'll venture to say 12 and so I say it's loli. Sans the breasts I think it would be easier to say loli, so it just looks like oppai loli to me. On the other hand the muscles of the abdomen and her height seem pretty developed.
Body looks adolescent to me. Not loli.
Updated
Did the child to post #2736563 need the loli tag? I saw it before it was given the tag and didn't expect it to be tagged as such. Another pic by the same artist ( post #2307554 ) contains Kiyoshimo in an even more explicit situation, her body is of similar build to I-14 and I-13, and yet that pic of her hasn't been given the tag, so I'm just wondering what distinguishes the I-14/I-13 pic enough for the loli tag to be necessary.
Plenty_of_Poi said:
Did the child to post #2736563 need the loli tag? I saw it before it was given the tag and didn't expect it to be tagged as such. Another pic by the same artist ( post #2307554 ) contains Kiyoshimo in an even more explicit situation, her body is of similar build to I-14 and I-13, and yet that pic of her hasn't been given the tag, so I'm just wondering what distinguishes the I-14/I-13 pic enough for the loli tag to be necessary.
Kiyoshimo (post #2307554) probably wasn't tagged loli because of wider hips and a curvier body.
reiyasona said:
Kiyoshimo (post #2307554) probably wasn't tagged loli because of wider hips and a curvier body.
That's all it takes huh? Guess that answers it then.
I can't help but wonder why, if its child is tagged loli, post #2736563 itself isn't tagged loli as well. Even if it isn't nude, it's still a younger-looking girl in a sexualized pose with prominent cameltoe. Loli isn't necessarily Explicit.
post #2774050
Keep the loli tags or remove them?
post #2613161 is this?
Seems obvious that this fits under loli, but I want to double check.
Not sure on post #2775997
post #2775432
I didn't think it was loli, but a regular member added the tag 10 hours later. Posting here for second opinions.
CodeKyuubi said:
post #2775432
I didn't think it was loli, but a regular member added the tag 10 hours later. Posting here for second opinions.
Torso and limbs are starting to show signs of femininity (elongated and curvy) ... not loli.
Loli, or just a very androgynous teen?