Checking on post #819138 I was thinking flat chest but wanted a second opinion
Posted under General
Checking on post #819138 I was thinking flat chest but wanted a second opinion
Krugger said:
Checking on post #819138 I was thinking flat chest but wanted a second opinion
I tagged it as I err on "better safe than sorry". If it's not feel free to de-tag.
One more art :
Basically she isn't nude, but she doesn't wear bra too, so it's a bit erotic.
HNTI said: post #819142
Nah, not loli.
HNTI said: One more art: post #819172
Removed it, as she's not looking very young there, beyond being small-breasted.
jjj14 said:
post #820101?
Not really. Doesn't feel loli.
If this were a female character, I'd have gone with child.
However, I'm of the opinion that a young male character dressed in women's lingerie carries a significantly higher degree of implied sexualization. The presence of the bulge is particularly so.
For the time being, I've tagged it as shota, pending further review by others.
Not sure if it should be tagged as loli.
+ doesn't look even like teenager
+ not big bust
- no sex and stuff like that in it
- might be qualified as borderline case as after has her clothing lifted and wears no paties
post #822508, post #559369, post #658655,
in comparison to post #760776
Actually, also take a look at nude child.
post #822508: Not sexual enough for loli. Changed to child.
post #559369: Too much detail on the nipples and vulva to leave the tag off. loli.
post #658655: Cutesy face does not make loli - or child, for that matter. Removed.
post #760776: Nipples detailed, but groin left conspicuously blank. This came off as sufficiently innocent that I tagged it as child.
Actually, also take a look at nude child.
Did a little cleaning.
HNTI said:
post #822443
For having enough prurient detail on the vulva to necessitate a censor-bar, I think it's past the line. loli added.
need secondary opinion(s).
post #823379: Looks young, but not prepubescent. No tag.
post #823337: Judging by the overall proportions, esp. with regards to head, hands, and torso, definitely loli.
sgcdonmai said:
post #559369: Too much detail on the nipples and vulva to leave the tag off. loli.post #658655: Cutesy face does not make loli - or child, for that matter. Removed.
Actually, my feelings are the exact opposite here. post #658655 is simply a child running naked, which believe it or not, is a perfectly normal thing in many places in the world which aren't the land of the free. I wouldn't necessarily fight to death for keeping it loli-free on its own, but... the face in post #658655 is definitely childish, with pretty much no contradiction from the body proportions. And the pose is not something you'd expect from a kid doing normal kiddy things.
For having enough prurient detail on the vulva to necessitate a censor-bar, I think it's past the line. loli added.
sgcdonmai said:
post #823379: Looks young, but not prepubescent. No tag.
These two are basically the same kind of picture, and I don't think the former is any more childish than the latter. I'd be inclined to judge both as not loli.
葉月 said:
Actually, my feelings are the exact opposite here. (post #559369) is simply a child running naked, which believe it or not, is a perfectly normal thing in many places in the world which aren't the land of the free. I wouldn't necessarily fight to death for keeping it loli-free on its own, but...
I struggled with that one. It came down to a mental coin-toss, with the result weighted towards "What kind of reaction would I be most likely to get if I was surfing DB at a netcafe and someone saw this over my shoulder?"
If you think it's more child than loli, I won't object, unless you have a random moment and rate it Safe.
the face in post #658655 is definitely childish, with pretty much no contradiction from the body proportions. And the pose is not something you'd expect from a kid doing normal kiddy things.
I'll agree about the pose, and the face, but the body does not look loli to me. Significantly too much bust-waist-hip variance for that.
These two are basically the same kind of picture, and I don't think the former is any more childish than the latter. I'd be inclined to judge both as not loli.
post #823379 has the proportions of a slender teenager, to my eye, whereas post #822443 has a noticeably younger look to her. The latter even has the "baby-fat" look, so the barely-hinted breasts come off as just that - baby fat.
post #427240
small != loli
post #254525
Art makes her look quite young, not sure about this one.
post #510982
Not sure, but parent and child look almost
identical, while only child is tagged as loli.