Posted under General
ion288 said:
post #238869
Loli? S?
I think the girl on the left qualifies for loli because of the slight cameltoe with spread legs. Also, the look on her face and the way she's holding the other girl's tail seem a bit suggestive. I think it probably qualifies for Q, though it's borderline.
Should I add the loli tag ? post #6686391
yuristheway said:
Should I add the loli tag ? post #6686391
I'd say yes
yuristheway said:
Should I add the loli tag ? post #6686391
I think Koharu's body structure may be a bit too developed to qualify save for the flat chest, unless there's some other factor I'm not seeing. I'm leaning towards petite instead.
post #6440903 Doesn't seem like it fits as loli. Not erotic, pretty innocent.
baconmeh2 said:
post #6440903 Doesn't seem like it fits as loli. Not erotic, pretty innocent.
Body type isn't even loli, it was only tagged with it because it was originally tagged child, which was wrong too.
I'm not sure why post #6426881 was tagged loli. The character is fully clothed with no focus on sensitive areas, and blushing is the most suggestive element. I know hypnosis fetishism exists, but I don't see how this would be considered sexual outside of that context.
Given that it has been tagged loli twice now and has apparently been flagged before with the reason being "realistic cp" (forum #247445), I'm willing to accept the possibility there's some other detail justifying the tag, but I really can't find anything else.
Blank_User said:
I'm not sure why post #6426881 was tagged loli. The character is fully clothed with no focus on sensitive areas, and blushing is the most suggestive element. I know hypnosis fetishism exists, but I don't see how this would be considered sexual outside of that context.
Given that it has been tagged loli twice now and has apparently been flagged before with the reason being "realistic cp" (forum #247445), I'm willing to accept the possibility there's some other detail justifying the tag, but I really can't find anything else.
To me, the fact that and the way in which the breasts are drawn, with the shirt highlighting the shape of her body, justifies tagging it with loli (copared to say post #6426926 from the same artist). For an "innocent" picture that just happens to incldue hypnosis, there's very little reason to draw the breasts like that.
岩戸鈴芽 said:
To me, the fact that and the way in which the breasts are drawn, with the shirt highlighting the shape of her body, justifies tagging it with loli (copared to say post #6426926 from the same artist). For an "innocent" picture that just happens to incldue hypnosis, there's very little reason to draw the breasts like that.
Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't sure if those were actually her breasts or just wrinkles in her shirt, but I can see how they appear emphasized enough to warrant the loli tag.
Loli? post #6706447
Maiden_in_Orange said:
Does this page qualify for shota? The character in question is obviously not too important (and if anyone is being sexualized, its probably Koishi, who doesn't qualify here), but its still a bathing scene, even if an ultimately innocent one in context.
The boy is basically a silhouette and nothing can be seen, so I don't think it qualifies.
I think this post should tagged loli also official age is 13?
post #6720410
darkimp72 said:
I think this post should tagged loli also official age is 13?
post #6720410
No. Loli/shota are for characters that appear preadolescent. Though it's pretty close to loli, this character has small breasts and significant pubic hair growth, so I say she's not quite young-looking enough to count. Also, official age plays no bearing into this.
Read the loli and shota wikis for more information (you can still view the wikis even if you can't view the posts).
Updated by Blank User
Blank_User said:
No. Loli/shota are for characters that appear preadolescent. Though it's pretty close to loli, this character has small breasts and significant pubic hair growth, so I say she's not quite young-looking enough to count. Also, official age plays no bearing into this.
Read the loli and shota wikis for more information (you can still view the wikis even if you can't view the posts).
Breasts and pubic hair don't necessarily disqualify something from being loli, and the latter isn't even present on the child post, so if nothing else there's even less room for debate there.
Loli/shota are primarily focused on proportions, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect anyone looking at those posts to perceive that as a child, pubic hair or no. I think there's a decently strong argument for both of those being tagged loli.
blindVigil said:
Breasts and pubic hair don't necessarily disqualify something from being loli, and the latter isn't even present on the child post, so if nothing else there's even less room for debate there.
Loli/shota are primarily focused on proportions, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect anyone looking at those posts to perceive that as a child, pubic hair or no. I think there's a decently strong argument for both of those being tagged loli.
For me, it was the combination of those factors and the height that made it seem like it would not need the loli tag. I do know that breasts and pubic hair don't always disqualify a post for loli (especially with oppai loli with childlike proportions), but this still feels like a borderline case to me. I'll admit I may be a bit permissive with some borderline cases because I know a balance needs to be kept between what we can freely show and what remains hidden, and the loli tag is sometimes overapplied (as you've seen). If another user feels this belongs in loli, I won't contest the decision.
Is this loli? post #6725964
Please, check post #6726126. Child post #6726063 doesn't have a loli tag.
Both loli or both not loli.
