yelite said:
I would say yes.
Posted under General
yelite said:
I would say yes.
Seconding the years-old question below post #57980. I guess by our current ion288-enforced standards it’s not loli because it’s “safe”?
Now, now. I have only changed 9100 posts to safe.
But seriously if you disagree with my definition of S then lets discuss it. I certainly wont get angry or offended.
Yuichi_Nietzche said:
A rather blatant cameltoe on a child. Yes thats loli.
Unbreakable said:
Definitely looks like a preteen to me. The tag should stay.
Krad_Hunter said:
I hesitate but Im gonna go with yes on this one.
post #3183115 and child, face makes me think loli.
post #62084
Technically safe but that child is definitely sexualised.
I think the first one is loli but I just want to be sure.
post #65424
Looks older than loli to me.
kittey said:
Could someone check the loli tag changes for the explicit posts on this page ? The safe loli ones have already been corrected, the two questionable ones seem correct.
I caught a few and looks like others have been fixed as well. @SurferRan if it's not explicit it's not loli. In post #3192388 there's no nudity so it's not loli.. heck 'she' could even pass as a boy.
Fujishiro said:
I caught a few and looks like others have been fixed as well. @SurferRan if it's not explicit it's not loli. In post #3192388 there's no nudity so it's not loli.. heck 'she' could even pass as a boy.
You DO know loli can be rated questionable too, right?
Unbreakable said:
You DO know loli can be rated questionable too, right?
Of course. But I'm just speaking generally, as danbooru's definition of explicit and questionable aren't really normal and take some getting used to. But as a general guideline if it's not "explicit" or "sexually suggestive" it's not loli. Personally I'd even de-loli'fy post #932301 to be honest due to the artistic value and lack of any real sexual influence. But iderno, to each their own I guess.. that's what the thread is for.
Yuichi_Nietzche said:
nah