hytone said:
post #1033218
Totally safe, nothing is visible.
Posted under General
hytone said:
post #1033218
Totally safe, nothing is visible.
lastsinz said:
post #1033822
The girl on the right looks small, so I'm not sure.
They look to be the same size and age overall. Seeing as Lily Black has a significant waist-to-hip variation, I think it's safe to say that it's not loli.
jjj14 said:
post #53572: loli or just petite?
Borderline enough that I wouldn't tag it, but just barely.
I tagged both loli just to be safe, but I'd like a second opinion.
@feldt
post #1036495
post #1036497
The anatomy is questionable, to say the least, but I can clearly tell that the artist wasn't going for a child/loli body type here.
Tag underwear_only topless instead of topless no_bra.
S1eth said:
@feldt
post #1036495
post #1036497The anatomy is questionable, to say the least, but I can clearly tell that the artist wasn't going for a child/loli body type here.
Tag underwear_only topless instead of topless no_bra.
Okay, thank you for correcting me!
borderline, not explicit enough?
Is this really loli? They look pretty tall (especially with the long legs), are not naked (we see a grand total of one nipple), they aren't flat nor are they having sex and hell, the rating is "questionable".
post #268328
This one here, however, SHOULD be loli.
post #1040665
With nothing but a coat and panties, I consider the amount of exposed skin evocative enough for a loli tag. Like with a previous example, the only thing preventing nipple exposure is strategically-placed clothing.
post #196284
Seems like loli-face on non-loli body. I would say no.
post #268328
Agreed, loli.
post #939698
What do you think? I tagged this loli at first because of the proportion of the head to the body, the short limbs, and the appearance of baby fat,
On a second look, I'm not sure that this isn't just a matter of POV & exaggerated perspective, and I decided to ask here before just leaving the tag on it.
Opinions? (I took the tag off in the meantime. Feel free to re-add it if you second my earlier judgment.)
(As to the last three above, I second H.M.: loli (if sufficiently rating:q), not loli, loli.)
Alright, thanks.
How about post #843590 and post #859468? (The latter is the doujin cover version of the former and the beginning of a pool for this doujin.)
Edit: also how about post #908373?
Updated by BCI Temp
BCI_Temp said: How about post #843590 and post #859468?
Those look like textbook loli to me.
Edit: also how about post #908373?
Not loli.
Thanks. Might as well drop a list...
post #607847?
post #608597?
post #676085?
post #765342?
post #775315?
post #788059?
post #816785?
post #852014?
post #865113?
post #1013696?
You may notice that I've been running through Satori today, which is a minefield of loli & near-loli.
post #607847 - not at all
post #608597 - The art is weak, so it's a bit difficult, but I'd say no.
post #676085 - Doesn't look like it.
post #765342 - Not at all, and why would anyone think quality that low is Danbooru material?
post #775315 - No, she's just grossly thin. But the lines are terrible on that image.
post #788059 - Might have been intended this way, but the artist screwed up the anatomical perspective at about the hips; the spine would appear to be anchored to the pelvis at roughly the normal placement of the tailbone.
post #816785 - Closer, especially in the face, but the torso and limb length suggest no.
post #852014 - Probably would be, but I'm not convinced that it's explicit enough to warrant the tag. Nothing's shown, and the pose isn't exactly lewd.
post #865113 - I'll wait for a second opinion, but leaning towards yes on this one.
post #1013696 - Yes. Tagged.
post #971526 - requesting review. thanks.
EDIT:
post #33623 - the parent post is tagged as loli.
Updated by ghostrigger
post #82360 - looks somewhat young and she's not wearing panties.
sgcdonmai said:
post #852014 - Probably would be, but I'm not convinced that it's explicit enough to warrant the tag. Nothing's shown, and the pose isn't exactly lewd.
That's true but loli is for all questionable material too, and this is a girl naked except for a ribbon. Does that change your answer on this one or any of the others?
Thanks for the replies.
ghostrigger said:
post #971526 - requesting review. thanks.EDIT:
post #33623 - the parent post is tagged as loli.
I can't tell on the first, but I'm inclined to say no on the second and its parent -- she's kind of long and lean, indicating she's a teen and her breasts are big enough to not be flat_chest.
JackyHF said:
post #82360 - looks somewhat young and she's not wearing panties.
I vote no. There's foreshortening on the torso, but she's got teen body proportions.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but this seems to be a fairly common misconception.
BCI_Temp said:
That's true but loli is for all questionable material too, and this is a girl naked except for a ribbon. Does that change your answer on this one or any of the others?
Not really. Loli is for sexually suggestive images, not everything that can fall into a questionable rating.
Well, and explicit stuff, but that goes without saying.
BCI_Temp said:
(post #82360)
I vote no. There's foreshortening on the torso, but she's got teen body proportions.
Mm, I'm not so sure. Her bra looks noticeably baggy, and the perspective suggests that she's thinner and shorter below the waist than she appears at first glance.
Any third opinions?
MyrMindservant beat me to answering your question, and said basically what I would have.