Posted under General
Guaro1238 said:
Im gonna say no on this one.
Jigsy said:
Yes very much so.
user_711026 said:
Doesnt really look like child anatomy, though possibly flaggable bad anatomy.
Rating check as well. "Tasteful" panty shots are Safe. This one isn't particularly revealing or suggestive, and it's not a focal point of the image anyway. I'm not sure why else this post would be tagged loli.
iridescent_slime said:
Rating check as well. "Tasteful" panty shots are Safe. This one isn't particularly revealing or suggestive, and it's not a focal point of the image anyway. I'm not sure why else this post would be tagged loli.
I don't see any reason for this to be anything else than safe, though I know this uploader often "overuse" rating:q and loli.
Don't think there's nearly enough of anything sexual here to be considered loli, or questionable for that matter
post #3813428 isn't tagged, but all of its siblings are
post #3812177 and post #3812183 have the reverse problem, they're tagged but none of their siblings are.
I don't think I would tag any of them as loli, but whatever people decide it should at least be consistent.
blindVigil said:
Don't think there's nearly enough of anything sexual here to be considered loli, or questionable for that matter
There is a bit of a cameltoe and it is clearly a child. Thus it is Q loli, at least according to current definitions.
blindVigil said:
post #3813428 isn't tagged, but all of its siblings are
post #3812177 and post #3812183 have the reverse problem, they're tagged but none of their siblings are.
I don't think I would tag any of them as loli, but whatever people decide it should at least be consistent.
I would agree on the first part being petite rather than loli, the second example looks to weird for me to rule on.
Do we have a stance on bad anatomy lolis?
(tag was added by another user)
I didn't hesitate to add loli to this one because I frankly can't see how it could be anything else; her head is proportionally large, her pelvis isn't particularly wide, and that elementary schoolers' backpack in the background isn't helping. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I didn't know that tagging "loli" makes the pic "premium exclusive" and now i blocked my sfw upload, can someone with a gold account please remove the tag?
Here is the pic.
>post #3828428
Doesn't appear to be loli despite being a bit suggestive.
Kikimaru said:
Doesn't look like pre-adolescent proportions to me. Not loli.
DarknetJin said:
Is the child supposed to be a boy or a girl? The post is tagged brother_and_sister, but if that's a boy he's showing some seriously deep cameltoe. Either way, this one is definitely loli/shota.
iridescent_slime said:
Is the child supposed to be a boy or a girl? The post is tagged brother_and_sister, but if that's a boy he's showing some seriously deep cameltoe. Either way, this one is definitely loli/shota.
This girl has to be uzumaki himawari, but I think the image is kinda mistagged. So it´s a loli.
The brother and sister tag is there, because the blonde haired girl could be the genderswaped version of Boruto.
Updated by Nacha
The breast size and hips makes me think not loli.
Unbreakable said:
The breast size and hips makes me think not loli.
Indeed, shes just short.
blindVigil said:
I would say yes.
post #121887, loli or child?
