Loli/shota check thread.

MyrMindservant said:
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but this seems to be a fairly common misconception.
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.

Loli's for NSFW images. If it's worksafe, it's not questionable. It's safe. There's a lot of safe stuff that's mistagged as questionable because q is the default rating, but that's besides the point. howto:rate makes all that pretty clear.

post #852014 is purely a question of perceived age, in my mind. Kid or not, that's definitely not worksafe.

sgcdonmai said:
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?

You've got some good points, and her face is very childlike. I change my vote to abstain. I wouldn't mind either way on this one.

More posts to consider, this time from Kurodani Yamame:
post #400283 (and possibly the parent)
post #412139 (and children)
post #799744
post #849772
post #951547
post #987644

post #400283 - age indeterminate; probably too lacking in sexualization to tag in any case.
post #412139 - added to those in the parent/child set that didn't have it.
post #799744 - not loli
post #849772 - doesn't look loli in figure. Also, typically, loli will not have pubic hair; pubes are pretty much anathema to the loli genre/style.
post #951547 - not even slightly loli.
post #987644 - also not even slightly loli.

I'm surprised by a couple of these responses (I mostly agreed with the others):
post #400283 - Her clothes are half torn off, and her panties pull down a little. She looks about 11 to me. That was one of the ones I felt more strongly about.
post #987644 - I dunno, she looks about 13 to me. It might not be, but I wouldn't want to have to defend it in court if it were found on my drive.

Thanks for the replies. I don't post 'em unless I think it's ambiguous, so I'm not bothered by being second guessed here.

Borderline Nitori dump for checking:
post #189238
post #249521 (and child post)
post #271374
post #289955 (mostly for Kisume, but maybe Nitori too)
post #291532 (highly suggestive)
post #302933 (for Suika & Nitori)
post #321695 (suggestive)
post #335128
post #424704
post #431428
post #454156
post #477145 (suggestive)
post #483133
post #488841
post #541875
post #555623 (probably just thin)
post #607388
post #614208
post #636014 (especially its child posts)
post #691266 (pre-teen/teen border...)
post #741457
post #775358
post #787437 (and child)
post #835665
post #845379
post #885859
post #920239
post #926928
post #967168 (I really don't think so, but...)
post #1003097
post #1003211 (Nice chest, but otherwise pretty childish...)

Nitori's amusing because she spans the breadth from near-toddlercon to impossibly buxom babe and every age & body build in between.

BCI_Temp said:
post #400283 - Her clothes are half torn off, and her panties pull down a little. She looks about 11 to me. That was one of the ones I felt more strongly about.

The problem I have with it is that she doesn't look 11 to me. So much of her body is concealed by baggy clothing that what's torn away doesn't seem to suggest any age range other than "somewhere between infant and crone".

post #987644 - I dunno, she looks about 13 to me. It might not be, but I wouldn't want to have to defend it in court if it were found on my drive.

We prefer not to use the "defensible in court" argument here, particularly because the definition of what is and is not acceptable will vary from court to court, country to country. e.g: As I understand it, in Australia, any depiction of flat chested girls in sexual situations counts as child porn.

In the case of this particular image, note the following:
1. clearly developed breasts
2. what appears to be a distinct bust:waist:hip variance
3. pubic hair visible on her vulva
4. adult proportions of head-to-torso and -limb length

Thanks for the replies. I don't post 'em unless I think it's ambiguous, so I'm not bothered by being second guessed here.

I'd personally rather this thread be overutilized than underutilized.

Please try to keep it to ten images per post, if only because that makes it easier for us to keep them sorted when reviewing them.

post #189238 - doesn't show anything. We wouldn't tag for a leotard or other skintight clothing, either, unless there was a clearly delineated cameltoe or conspicuously protruding nipples.
post #249521 - tagged
post #271374 - The face and drawing style is childish, but the proportions do not agree.
post #289955 - They're just bathing, and fighting a little.
post #291532 - I'm leaning towards tagging this, but I want an additional opinion before moving on it.
post #302933 - tagged
post #321695 - Not loli at all. The bagginess of her clothing makes it flat-out impossible to describe her age.
post #335128
- Can't say from that angle.

post #424704 - Even if it were loli (which it's not), simple pantyshots are not considered in any way explicit by Danbooru standards.
post #431428 - definitely a child's body, but I'm not sure if that's explicit enough. My first thought looking at it was "oh, she's sick with a fever".
post #454156 - Other than the small bust, the pose obscures her figure too much to determine.
post #477145 - Suggestive, but that's a thin body, not a loli one.
post #483133 - tagged
post #488841 - Probably just enough to get the tag, but I'll wait for another opinion.
post #541875 - Not a loli body.
post #555623 - yeah, I think she's just skinny there.
post #607388 - tagged
post #614208 - hips look too wide for loli
post #636014 - Face and overall proportions don't say loli to me.
post #691266 - Leaning towards loli on this. 3rd?
post #741457 - tagged
post #775358 - Just a pantyshot
post #787437 - Tagged, but that suspicious groin bulge makes me wonder if it shouldn't be tagged shota instead.
post #835665 - Honestly, the style seems too surreal to tag this.
post #845379 - Gonna go out on a limb and tag this.
post #885859 - Breasts, and an hourglass figure. Not loli. Possibly she's just a lot shorter than the guy.
post #920239 - Not loli, just small breasts.
post #926928 - tagged
post #967168 - Not even remotely.
post #1003097 - Not loli; it's just the face.
post #1003211 - Only really loli in the face.

sgcdonmai said:
The problem I have with it is that she doesn't look 11 to me.

Fair enough. I'd rather err on the side of saying no if someone else disagrees with me over this than drop an image into invisibility to the majority of users.

As I understand it, in Australia, any depiction of flat chested girls in sexual situations counts as child porn.

Well, Australia is an outlier, but when I think underage, I tend to remember that plenty of girls from 7-13 have the beginnings of breasts and other signs of early puberty. OTOH, we do have plenty of flat-chested non-lolis, so I tend to rely on head/body ratios, limb length, presence of pubes or other body hair, and general facial expression & demeanor.

I think her head's a little large for her body and her arms a little short, but all that said, I did outright miss the pubes on this one. You're right -- not loli.

Please try to keep it to ten images per post, if only because that makes it easier for us to keep them sorted when reviewing them.

Will do. I've got a 32+1-image Momiji dump that I'm going to split up into 3 parts.

Some minor feedback...

post #189238 - There's a small line that looks suspiciously like the top of a vagina to me.
post #424704 - She's got a solidly loli head/torso/arms mix to me, and it's more than just a simple pantyshot. It's a pair of clinging panties that follow the asscrack and includes a crotch bulge (but no camletoe).
post #431428 - It's not explicit, but it's definitely intended to be erotic and NSFW. Plus, her pants are pulled pretty far down.
post #541875 - Really? I thought that one was pretty solid. A little long limbed, but no chest, slight babyfat on the belly, and a childish face.
post #775358 - Like post #424704, it's pantyshot with some ass/groin definition. Definitely meets the minimal erotic intent requirement for not being rated safe.
post #835665 - Goofy, yes, but if you ignore what's printed on the panties, would it be loli?
post #885859 - She's a lot shorter, and all she really has going for non-loli are wide hips. The artist is definitely a loli fan, going from the rest of his pics, so I think that was his intent.
post #920239 - I thought not at first and even downloaded a copy, but something about it screams child to me. Probably the face. I'll leave it be, though.

Also, any third person opinions on post #291532, post #488841, and post #691266?

Anyway, I'll post the Momiji list sometime later tonight. Thanks again.

Here's that Momiji list I promised. I trimmed it down to 25 based on earlier feedback. Posting in three parts:

post #165787
post #212844 (aside: tiny tiny ass)
post #248592 (and child post)
post #289392
post #303879
post #420459
post #426908
post #438466

post #583070
post #595993
post #617420
post #624359 (hard to tell...)
post #626183 (probably not...)
post #671951 (perspective?)
post #683487 (tall & lean, but childish)
post #685396

post #788306
post #806267
post #815513
post #824107
post #868426
post #894158
post #1000872 (more for Kyouko)
post #1027423 (more for Chen & Reisen)

Random other pic Momiji appears in:
post #695601 (This one's got an innocent but questionable Suika & an explicit Yuugi in the same pic, engaged in a non-sexual activity. What's the call on that?)

First Set:

post #165787 tagged. Child and cum(?) on her clothes.
post #212844 see comment below
post #248592 Anatomy is horrifying!!! Don't think it would be loli if the artist drew it correctly.
post #289392 That' no child.
post #303879 see comment below
post #420459 A little too old, waist and hips are hidden behind the sleeves.
post #426908 Neither a child nor explicit enough
post #438466 Not a child

Second Set:

post #583070 Urgh, the anatomy! A child is being attacked by an ass-with-legs monster. Tagged for the face and chest, but lower body DOES NOT BELONG to that girl.
post #595993 Barely questionable and proportions not those of a child.
post #617420 I say no and sgcdonmai will disagree (say yes). The shading kind of implies breasts, but with only the bust, I can't tell for sure.
post #624359 Indeterminable due to perspective, so no. Limbs also appear too long.
post #626183 Too old, long legs.
post #671951 Perspective again. All I see is breasts.
post #683487 Children aren't that tall.
post #685396 She appears too old, but those guys are huge. Second opinion needed.

Third Set:

post #788306 No, wide hips, slender waist.
post #806267 No, cutesy face, but not the body of a child.
post #815513 Same. Wide hips and thighs.
post #824107 Breasts, waist and ass say no. (that face is really poorly drawn)
post #868426 Possibly. It's the perspective again...
post #894158 Perspective.... I tend to "no".
post #1000872 I would say no. You cannot see her whole body in this image, but you can in the doujinshi where she clearly isn't a loli. I wouldn't base this on another image, but the portrayals of her in the doujinshi are pretty consistent.

post #695601 - Yuugi is only questionable and the whole situation is non-sexual. Children bathing nude can be tagged child

ry:
Everything ry draws looks like child (even if he gives the character large breasts). The 2 images don't show much of anything, but the pulled panties, the collar/leash/chain and the bed should be enough for the loli tag.

Thanks for the double-checking. Some minor feedback:

post #617420 She does seem to have breasts, but they're pretty young breasts. That said, I'm leaning a lot less towards loli than I was before your comment, so I say leave it.
post #1000872 Huh. That was another one I felt strongly about. I mean, 80% sure on. Oh well, I'll leave it since there's ground for disagreement on it.

post #695601 I thought Yuugi's visible pussy would make her explicit. Oh well, she's not really the one at issue, so child it is.

Thanks for looking over stuff. You pretty much hit the same opinions I had. ry's stuff bugs me 'cause a loli style definitely his thing, but I'm not always sure whether he's only got one toe across the line or not.

Third person opinions still needed on post #291532, post #488841, post #691266, and now also #post #685396.

S1eth said:
post #695601 - Yuugi is only questionable and the whole situation is non-sexual. Children bathing nude can be tagged child

Not this again. Even if it's contextually innocent, if you can see certain bits of her anatomy (nipples, for instance), it's loli. Remember: We're not the only people using the loli tag; advertisers use it as a censor, and they're going to object to having nude children next to their ads.

However, with that said, I don't really find post #695601 to be loli. Must be the hips and legs.

BCI_Temp said:
I thought Yuugi's visible pussy would make her explicit.

Read howto:rate and forum #31026. Preferably the latter first, as it provides more context and examples.

Third person opinions still needed on post #291532, post #488841, post #691266, and now also #post #685396.

post #291532 Not sure, since there aren't a lot of details. Probably not loli.
post #488841 Loli.
post #691266 Loli.
post #685396 Flat.

post #291532 - Unsure. post #291878 doesn't present conclusive evidence either. (BTW, would you tag post #291878 child?)
post #488841 - no, that one is so close to rating:safe. She doesn't look THAT young either.
post #691266 - yes, because of her low eyes/large forehead. She also appears rather tiny.

post #1045786

Hillside_Moose said:
Not this again.

Remember that nobody ever agreed with you.

Read howto:rate and forum #31026. Preferably the latter first, as it provides more context and examples.

Hrm. Well, I don't want to start up a continuation of an earlier argument. I did, however, forget that "non-blatantly exposed genitals" are merely questionable under Danbooru standards, so point taken.

S1eth said:
(BTW, would you tag post #291878 child?)

I don't know on that one, it's a bit sexually suggestive from the way she seems to be treating it as "Uncommon Stimulation," but it's so far from explicit that I don't think I could tag it loli myself.

Thanks to both of your for the triple-checks.

New list... Aya & Hatate loli check: (12 pics)
post #113891
post #145524
post #245793
post #252982
post #293463 (Only her breasts make me think no...)
post #320684

post #341318 (Safe?)
post #627026
post #766307
post #798609 (Looks 12-13 to me...)
post #836242 (Also? Just an ugly pic, IMHO.)
post #993972 (Chibi? Loli? Not mutually exclusive?)

S1eth said:
Remember that nobody ever agreed with you.

Oh??? jxh2154's response seems to agree. For good measure, I even asked Albert about how he feels, since I knew we were going to have this argument again:

• My message
• Albert's response

Your move.

post #113891 - Yes, for Aya.
post #145524 - ....yes, barely
post #245793 - Yes. Maybe you should just flag it for bad proportions.
post #252982 - Figure, chest and face tell me that's a child. It's not the most explicit one, though. Ask jxh2154 why he removed the loli tag.
post #293463 - same artist, larger breasts. Since the perspective makes it hard to tell again, I say no.
post #320684 No, look at her hourglass figure.

post #341318 - Safe
post #627026 - "kinda shitty looking." Probably yes, arms and torso are tiny.
post #766307 - Another opinion needed
post #798609 - Not for me (breast, waist, hips), but her hands have some baby fat. Is that a maebari or a c-string?
post #836242 - No. The human body doesn't work that way
post #993972 - The border between child and chibi is often blurry. Maybe yes.
[/quote]

I don't want to flame or derail the thread but this is something I can't simply ignore.

Hillside_Moose said:
Oh??? jxh2154's response seems to agree. For good measure, I even asked Albert about how he feels, since I knew we were going to have this argument again:

• My message
• Albert's response

If you really want to impose your opinion on others then at least do it properly.

jxh2154 hadn't said that he agrees with you. He only said that those images are borderline in his opinion. And even then, if his forum posts are any indication, he's not a big fan of forcing his opinion.

As for the Albert, if he really want draw this line he should make an announcement in a forum thread or otherwise. Until then this is just a personal message he sent to you, not a rule.

(At least I've tried to make things right. Let's see if this will be another case of "you don't know when to stop".)

It's a rule.

The criteria isn't really something I get to decide. J-List thinks it knows what loli is, and according to them naked pre-teens count as loli and they don't want stuff like that to be publicly associated with a site they advertise on. If I was part of the 1% and didn't need advertisers then we could spend time arguing semantics. But for now, borderline cases should be tagged as loli.