Posted under General
T5J8F8 said:
post #646324
The fact that the cameltoe visibly follows the exact shape of the vulva would just about earn the loli tag all by itself.
The fact that the underwear are transparent (and, incidentally, showing off nipples and the fact that the girls have no pubes) pushes this one over the line.
Good call.
edit, re: post #646324 - I could have sworn the loli tag was already there, but it's not in the tag history. Weird. Anyway, added.
Just wanting to make sure if it classifies as loli or not.
Needs checking as I'm not sure. I didn't tag it as loli, but it's up to moderators.
Mr_GT said:
post #775218
Does qualify.
HNTI said:
post #776358
I don't think this one does. At the very least, there's so little of her figure visible that it's dubious at best.
On the one hand she has flat chest, but on the other hand looks a bit older than most of lolis...
HNTI said:
post #778043
I'd say it's a slim teen, not loli. Tag removed.
I'd say it's a slim teen, not loli. Tag removed.
Ok, thanks and one more from that artbook :
A bit more questionable, but still doesn't have a loli air about it. flat chest will suffice there.
The lack of taper towards the waist - without any other hint of chubbiness - suggests a childlike figure. The breasts suggest a teenager. The crotch right in the camera suggest either.
I'm going to have to go on proportions vs. head size, here, and the arms and torso say the loli tag belongs.
Open for debate, though; this one's far from concrete.
post #779118 and need correcting "shor hair" to "short hair" as I can't edit tags after uploading picture.
Also this one : post #727271 - she is neither flat-chested nor very young, so why it's tagged as loli ?
Updated by HNTI
HNTI said: Also this one: post #727271 - she does loo neither flat chested nor very young, so why it's tagged as loli ?
Removed.
HNTI said:
post #779750
Eh, nah. Removed.
HNTI said:
post #779118
There's not a single thing in this picture to suggest post-pubescense. Certainly loli enough for the tag.
Too borderline to be sure.
nanami said:
post #780614
Nowhere near sexually explicit enough.
Also, that linework is atrocious.
