post # 981846
Not really too sexual but the girl looks young but wanted to be safe. I have not tagged it
Posted under General
Slightly offtopic but I didn't know where else I can ask for this. In post #989174 the tada_ama_kyoushi tag should be replaced with dadaama_kyoushi, it is a correct romanization of eroge's title as can be seen from both its homepage url http://momofero.masterup.net/product/dadaama/index.html and original title.
sgcdonmai said:
post #980985This one, however, does get it. The side-view of nipples on a topless, visibly underaged girl does qualify.
Really? It's not nearly explicit enough to qualify as loli.
ROMaster2 said:
post #989858
Not loli.
It's tagged as questionable, so...
post #994910 want to confirm
psich said:
post #996382
Foam covers everything, no sexual actions or poses. Just someone bathing. Completely safe.
Cyberia-Mix said:
post #688017
No loli for the version with underwear, yes for the others.
My thoughts as well. You had tagged the first one child though. (Or were you just replying about the last one?)
---
post #798823 (ew)
Cyberia-Mix said:
My thoughts as well. You had tagged the first one child though. (Or were you just replying about the last one?)
You just made me check for any tag edits I have(n't) done. Yes, I was talking about the last image and its child posts.
I tagged post #919190 child because, even though she is nude, she is just kind of sitting there and nothing else is happening, which is pretty close to the "non sexual nudity" that we would even tag "safe". I compare them to similar or previously discussed images such as post #760776 or post #860832.
Cyberia-Mix said:
post #798823 (ew)
Certainly. Her torso is tiny compared to the male's and her head is large.
I'm sorry, but I'm re-adding loli to post #919190, post #760776, and post #860832. The context may be innocent, but they are still very nude.