Loli/shota check thread.

葉月 said:
It's randoseru and an obviously child, topless girl, blushing. That's like Paedology 101.

Oh I know, I brought it up on the "Nothing is shown" factor.

Bastille said:
(post #626237) I had assumed that was Suika's hand while giant, which wouldn't really make her a minigirl.

Without a landscape to judge it against, the difference between "giantess + normal-sized girl" and "normal-sized girl + minigirl" is purely academic. You can't see whose hand that is, and the image was already tagged minigirl, so I went with that.
The issue is not so much that semantic, as it is the power-play going on. A much larger person is stripping a loli, apparently against her will. That's what the image is about.

(post #53479, recorder-licking) Seriously?

It's not exactly the same as leaving drool all over a popsicle. You put a recorder to your lips and blow air in. The tongue generally doesn't come into play... unless the objective is sexual teasing of the audience.

post #375615, post #364511: My only issue is wondering if it was sexually-charged enough to qualify, pedobaiting and randoseru aside. I don't think the overalls were, but these two, I leaned the other way on. Glad that's decided.

Recorders are right behind randoresu when it comes to japanese loli fetish objects.

post #571013
post #584832

post #584832 -- definitely not loli, and WTF was it rated explicit? It's safe.

post #571013 -- you could argue either way, but a more important issue is why did we have such a shitty pic here? I'm deeply offended by the fact it was approved.

葉月 said:
post #584832 -- definitely not loli, and WTF was it rated explicit? It's safe.

She's masturbating.

葉月 said:
post #571013 -- you could argue either way, but a more important issue is why did we have such a shitty pic here? I'm deeply offended by the fact it was approved.

That hurts...

Masturbation one changed to questionable, the other is meh, who cares?

葉月 said:
A more important issue is why did we have such a shitty pic here? I'm deeply offended by the fact it was approved.

Oh, I know that feeling.

bored_man said:
She's masturbating.

No, that's your conjecture. It's perfectly reasonable to be in this position and not masturbate, it simply happens to be a very comfortable spot to place your hands in fetal position.

She's got her hand in her crotch, her skirt off, and she's sniffing Hei's shirt.

She's masturbating.

Her skirt is on, and her hand isn't even in her pants.

A hand need not be under clothing for a woman to rub herself off.

Fencedude's reasons, plus the blushing, are more than enough evidence to make the masturbation tag a reasonable one in that post.

post #319262 ?

sgcdonmai said:
Fencedude's reasons, plus the blushing, are more than enough evidence to make the masturbation tag a reasonable one in that post.

Both sort of work here I'm afraid. Since it's borderline you might want to find this image when you've excluded masturbation from your search.

mutecrow said:
post #319262?

It deserved the tag, but it's a moot point now.

Indeed.

Good to know for the future though, thanks.

post #636823
post #636473
post #625697
post #618130
post #617733
post #617365
post #615536
post #614711
post #611558
post #609558

And then I'm less certain on these ones. The hips give reason to make me think the tag shouldn't apply, but hard to tell.
post #610884
post #610883
post #506327

post #636823: Not explicit enough for it. Removed.

post #636473: undressing, teasing (both verbal and physical), part of nipple visible. It stays.

post #625697: Not explicit enough. Removed. Also, bad hands.

post #618130: Not even remotely explicit enough. Removed.

post #617733: Pantyshots alone are not enough, even with the mostly-bare ass there. Not even a cameltoe visible. Removed.

post #617365: Body is unquestionably loli. Image content, though? No suggestive pose, no visible naughty bits, nothing. Removed.

post #615536: The angle is the only really suggestive thing here. Removed.

post #614711: Goth-loli clothing plus panties, nothing more. Removed, and rated Safe.

post #611558: ...is the lingerie tag really applicable when it's just plain bra+panties with a color print on them? Regardless, not explicit enough, so removed.

post #609558: Again, the camera angle is the only suggestive part. Removed.

post #610883, post #610884: By the camera angle, the hips are probably more slender than they look. However, the proportions overall say "petite adult, not loli" beyond a shadow of a doubt.

post #506327: Remi's head-to-torso proportions do scream "loli" here, though. The perspective just makes the hips appear wider than they are, and given the head-to-torso ratio, the appearance of (small) breasts seems irrelevant. It stays.

post #290361
post #233264
post #223134
post #160945
post #142774
post #98588
post #98285
post #95632
post #94172
post #93191
post #88633