post #781414
post #781421
post #781433
Look like borderline to me, but judge it yourself.
Updated by HNTI
Posted under General
post #781414
post #781421
post #781433
Look like borderline to me, but judge it yourself.
Updated by HNTI
HNTI said: post #781414
post #781421
post #781433
Dunno on 1, no on 2, yes on 3.
post #781414: I'm also on the fence on this one, due to the bad use of anatomy and perspective making her figure age-indeterminate. Honestly, I'm tempted to flag it for quality reasons.
Log said:
Flag a post that hasn't been approved? You have been here long enough to know better.
The "awaiting moderation" bar slipped right under my radar.
HNTI said:
post #781806
post #781837
post #782023 <- NSFW bestiality
781806, I'd say it does apply.
781837, definitely not.
782023, it's borderline, but mostly because of the cutesy-poo look on the face. The girl's figure is mostly not depicted.
Just want to check if this requires a loli tag post #783250
Krugger said:
Just want to check if this requires a loli tag post #783250
Considering the drooling and ahegao, I'd say that's more than suggestive enough, yes.
post #783768 It's Nymph - the main loli of Sora no otoshimono - after all.
As far as judgment of "is this loli or not" is concerned, who the character is in their own series' canon is completely irrelevant. Artists draw loli versions of adult characters (and vice-versa) all the time.
post #753768: Visibly developed breasts, significant hips. Generally does not look like a loli; just looks a bit short. No loli tag necessary.
mutecrow said:
post #343134
I think so, but it's only slightly over the borderline based on composition and head-size proportions. I've tagged it, but if someone else disagrees and removes it, I won't put up a fight.
HNTI said: post #784556
post #784558
Just in case.
No to both although the latter is maybe questionable.
post #71212? Seems pretty innocent to me.
jjj14 said:
post #71212? Seems pretty innocent to me.
I'm inclined keep it loli. The situation seems innocent enough, but the art looks more like it intends to be arousing.
I don't get that impression at all. Deserving of the Questionable rating, sure, but there doesn't seem to be anything intended to titillate. Note the lack of hands in suspicious places. There's not even the normally-obligatory cameltoe. The whole thing seems perfectly innocent.
Downgraded to child.
Hey is this loli or just a petite young lady of indeterminate age?
Action_Kamen said: Hey is this loli or just a petite young lady of indeterminate age? post #785450
Not really loli enough for the tag, I think. Maybe if it were more explicit, but I would leave it off as it stands.