Posted under General
And post #160572?
While I'm at it...
post #544909
post #386415
post #361380
post #172511
post #159438
post #159436
post #159434
post #81037
post #57063
post #53718
post #40566
And on the Umineko side of things
post #480693
There's 12 there, hope you don't mind me not following the 10 per post request.
Bastille said:
And post #160572?
I recall an earlier decision (can't remember if it was in this thread or not, and can't be arsed to search) where a hand just under the waistband of the undergarments was not considered suggestive enough. This one, I'm leaning a lot more towards the tag applying, due to the multitude of other signs suggesting she's about one second away from masturbating, but I'll defer to others' judgment on this.
post #544909: The depiction is only a pantyshot, but the text elevates it to strongly suggestive.
post #386415: Borderline. She's visibly pantyless, but nothing is shown, and the pose says "shyness" more than "come get it".
post #361380: This is a different story. The leg-embrace and topless Rika make it too suggestive not to tag.
post #172511: no panties aside, I don't think this one's very suggestive in tone. Still, I wouldn't remove the tag, thanks to Satoko's state of dress.
post #159438: Not even close. Removed.
post #159436: This, even less than the previous.
post #159434: Same, and someone must have been screwing around to rate that Explicit.
post #81037: Creepy, and a bit suggestive. I'd say leave it.
post #57063: The pose and camera POV are pretty sexual.
post #53718: Just a pantyshot.
post #40566: The chest-grope and heavy breathing by Miyo... yeah, that's pretty blatant. It stays for this one.
post #480693: Pantyshot, nothing more.
12 is fine. "Ten" is a guideline; just try to keep it close to that.
post #631429 You'll probably rule it borderline and leave it alone, but eh.
post #633254
And then someon else's verdict on post #160572
sgcdonmai said:
post #544909: The depiction is only a pantyshot, but the text elevates it to strongly suggestive.
Text actually factors into things?
sgcdonmai said:
post #386415: Borderline. She's visibly pantyless, but nothing is shown, and the pose says "shyness" more than "come get it".
Should be safe then.
sgcdonmai said:
post #361380: This is a different story. The leg-embrace and topless Rika make it too suggestive not to tag.
They're clothed there though... I'm thinking back to the onsen grope image and viewing this as much tamer than that.
sgcdonmai said:
post #172511: no panties aside, I don't think this one's very suggestive in tone. Still, I wouldn't remove the tag, thanks to Satoko's state of dress.
Not sure I follow...
sgcdonmai said:
post #81037: Creepy, and a bit suggestive. I'd say leave it.
It's not really all that sexual though.
Borderline loli? I can't decide myself.
Bastille said:
post #631429 You'll probably rule it borderline and leave it alone, but eh.
I see labia. Tag stays.
post #633254, on the other hand, doesn't earn it. Removed.
Text actually factors into things?
Yes, for a variety of tagging purposes, if the text is present in the image.
(post #361380)
They're clothed there though... I'm thinking back to the onsen grope image and viewing this as much tamer than that.
Boob-grabbing in the bath is tame mostly due to use as a comedy gag.
One girl wrapping her legs around another girl with no top? Not so innocent.
(post #172511)
Not sure I follow...
Satoko (and possibly Rika, also) is bottomless there, and posed so that the viewer sees the underside of her buttocks. Then there's the whole fluid-spattered-on-body thing (yes, I know, it's empirically obvious that it's just honey, but it's done in such a way as to evoke thoughts of certain other organic fluids.
Not conclusive enough in either direction for me to want to mess with it.
(post #81037)
It's not really all that sexual though.
Not particularly on Satoko's part, but pay attention to what the older guy is doing.
That's a visibly older man, lifting her dress with one hand and fondling her thigh quite close to her crotch with the other. Quite suggestive.
I'm with Bastille on the Suwako pic. Also, that is a woefully misplaced vagina.
If it wasn't for the fact that it would take far too long to do, I'd go over every image tagged loli as opposed to whenever I stumble across them looking at other things but alas.
post #633552
post #632905
post #632903
post #630117
post #576281
post #560886
post #511954
post #375615
post #364511
post #173833
Still need someone else's verdict on post #160572
post #633552
It's only a pantyshot, and there's no blatant sexuality. I'd say no.
post #632905
Not loli.
post #632903
Children don't have thighs like that, yet the rest of her frame is rather loli. I'm torn.
post #630117
Overly young face, but I'm not getting loli vibes.
post #511954
post #173833
post #576281
post #375615
post #364511
post #560886
Loli.
Hillside_Moose said:
post #632903
Children don't have thighs like that, yet the rest of her frame is rather loli. I'm torn.
Not loli. It'd be jailbait if we had a category like that.
post #511954
post #173833
post #576281
[...]
Loli.
Shouldn't we go with the same "just pantyshot" logic as in post #633552? And the last one barely shows anything; I agree with braids being hot as hell, but that shouldn't be a reason to make it loli :) post #375615 seems more loli-ish for some reason, despite showing about the same amount of flesh. Maybe it's the backpack?
She's flashing her panties in post #511954, whereas post #633552 it's wind lifting Cirno's dress; it's this suggestive contrast that makes me think loli for the former and not the latter. I admit this one gave me trouble since it's so tame, so I don't feel strongly either way.
post #173833: Her pose is really suggestive, like she's ready for imminent sex. She might have some breasts developing, but she has the figure of a tube. I have a hard time seeing this as anything but loli.
In post #576281, the character is wearing nothing but overalls, with a lot of skin shown. Seems pretty suggestive to me. Do you look for nipple exposure before tagging it loli?
post #633552: Those panties look suspiciously wet around the crotch, but it could just be the lighting.
post #632905: Not loli at all.
post #632903: Closer, but those legs are quite un-loli.
post #630117: The head-to-body proportions are slightly kidsy, yes, but the image content isn't very sexual.
post #576281: She's clothed enough to pass for swimsuit standards, facing away, etc. This is less explicit than a pantyshot. Removed.
post #560886: The sweating and the S&M elements (whip+lingerie, and how she's speaking) make this one suspicious enough that I wouldn't remove the tag.
post #511954: The speaking element kinda kills the presence of sexual implication in that skirt-lift. Removing.
post #375615, post #364511: Doesn't look that much to me, but it's clear it was drawn to appeal to lolicon aesthetics with that toplessness. Dunno how to call this one.
post #173833: Barely a pantyshot, presence of (small, but noticeable) breasts, yada yada. The hint of sideboob (barely) and the erect nipple make this a bit more questionable. Call?
post #626237
post #623244
post #622140
post #621067
post #620440
post #620119
post #602099
post #523099
post #53479
And then the grand ol' "Needs more opinions"
post #375615
post #364511
post #173833
post #160572 Two people chipped in for the thread and said nothing on this... Alas.
post #626237: The fact that she's a minigirl and in someone's hand would imply that she's being forcibly undressed. That carries several connotations. It stays.
post #623244: Doesn't really look like it, but I can't drag my eyes away from the absurdly large size of that thigh gap.
post #622140: Doesn't show anything.
post #621067: Text makes her sound rather young, but there's zero size difference between her and "papa", giving her an older look. Removed.
post #620440: The hips look big, but I think that's the camera angle at work. Leaving it as-is.
post #620119: Okay, that's more than obviously a child's body... but it's still just a pantyshot, even with the skirt lift and the pulled-down pantyhose.
post #602099: Overall childish proportions, nipples visible. Tag stays.
post #523099: Open legs + cameltoe; I think it should stay.
post #53479: Licking the recorder (trail of drool leading from tongue to mouthpiece) is pretty suggestive here. It should stay.
sgcdonmai said:
post #620440: The hips look big, but I think that's the camera angle at work. Leaving it as-is.
[...]
post #602099: Overall childish proportions, nipples visible. Tag stays.
In both she's clearly not a kid, particularly when you look at her face. She's simply ironing board-flat, but that's it. Removed without any doubts on my part.
post #173833: Barely a pantyshot, presence of (small, but noticeable) breasts, yada yada. The hint of sideboob (barely) and the erect nipple make this a bit more questionable. Call?
Not quite loli, IMHO. Removed.
Bastille said:
post #160572 Two people chipped in for the thread and said nothing on this... Alas.
This is so very borderline it's not funny. I'd be tempted to remove the tag, but meh.
葉月 said:
In both (post #620440, post #602099) she's clearly not a kid, particularly when you look at her face. She's simply ironing board-flat, but that's it. Removed without any doubts on my part.
I'm dubious enough on post #620440 that I won't argue the point, but on post #602099 I have to disagree flat-out.
Flat chest, barely-pubescent hips (if any at all), and the head-to-body ratio all scream loli. It needs the tag.
And on further inspection of post #160572, I just realized she's tugging the panties upward to give herself cameltoe. That's probably suggestive enough to keep the tag.
sgcdonmai said:
I'm dubious enough on post #620440 that I won't argue the point, but on post #602099 I have to disagree flat-out.
Flat chest, barely-pubescent hips (if any at all), and the head-to-body ratio all scream loli. It needs the tag.
First of all, you can't see her hips. But she's got some curves, slight ones, but they're there. Also her proportions are wrong, the torso is too long and not sufficiently barrel-shaped for a kid.
And on further inspection of post #160572, I just realized she's tugging the panties upward to give herself cameltoe. That's probably suggestive enough to keep the tag.
No she isn't. She'd need actually to grab them to do that. She's merely keeping her hand under her tights... not that it makes it much "better", but correctness demands I point that out.
葉月 said:
First of all, you can't see her hips. But she's got some curves, slight ones, but they're there. Also her proportions are wrong, the torso is too long and not sufficiently barrel-shaped for a kid.
You can get a guess at the shape of her hips from the outline above and below her hip on the left. They're there, but slender.
The long torso is an argument in favor of her being loli. The legs and arms lengthen after the torso in human development.
And she doesn't need to have zero figure to be loli; she just has to look like a middle schooler or younger. This barely-pubescent-at-best figure qualifies.
She's merely keeping her hand under her tights... not that it makes it much "better", but correctness demands I point that out.
Here's why I think saw tugging.
1 is what particularly made me think that. Zooming in on the image doesn't change the appearance of that pressure line being placed underneath her fingertip.
sgcdonmai said:
post #626237: The fact that she's a minigirl and in someone's hand would imply that she's being forcibly undressed. That carries several connotations. It stays.
I had assumed that was Suika's hand while giant, which wouldn't really make her a minigirl.
sgcdonmai said:
post #620119: Okay, that's more than obviously a child's body... but it's still just a pantyshot, even with the skirt lift and the pulled-down pantyhose.
And yet it was retagged by 葉月 afterwards and without mention of why... *shrug*
sgcdonmai said:
post #53479: Licking the recorder (trail of drool leading from tongue to mouthpiece) is pretty suggestive here. It should stay.
Seriously?
And then I'm guessing 葉月 determined post #375615 and post #364511 loli since they removed the tag on post #173833 but not them so I'll let those be.
Bastille said:
And then I'm guessing 葉月 determined post #375615 and post #364511 loli since they removed the tag on post #173833 but not them so I'll let those be.
It's randoseru and an obviously child, topless girl, blushing. That's like Paedology 101.
