Posted under General
gaburieru-sama said:
post #1710447
Does an image still warrants the loli tag if a clearly preadolescent character is fully clothed while preforming an sexual action without direct contact? In this paticular case an artificial vagina.
Yes. Nudity isn't a requirement of loli, anything sexual is.
post #1718758
While technically everything's "covered," I don't think I'd want it popping up on a monitor outside my home. I apologize for not really getting where the "line in the sand" is yet.
post #1491421
A much younger look than normal from the artist, with what looks like a relatively "there" chest, but nevertheless, I'd argue those could just be the folds of her top. Legs are a bit chubby in a way consistent with children. Clearly sexual in nature and whatnot.
post #543136 and post #542723 - all of the characters look teenaged rather than child-like, and the image is not explicit enough to warrant loli tag in the first place.
ntsrf177 said:
post #543136 and post #542723 - all of the characters look teenaged rather than child-like, and the image is not explicit enough to warrant loli tag in the first place.
It's sexual in nature. Even if nothing is shown, the poses (and pulled shirts and so on) are meant to bring attention to their sexuality. Definitely loli tag
Borrator said:
It's sexual in nature. Even if nothing is shown, the poses (and pulled shirts and so on) are meant to bring attention to their sexuality. Definitely loli tag
I know it is supposed to be sexually suggestive, but what I meant to say is that they don't look loli enough. (Maybe only Kuroko, but that could be just the face...)
Borrator said:
It's sexual in nature. Even if nothing is shown, the poses (and pulled shirts and so on) are meant to bring attention to their sexuality. Definitely loli tag
Only one of the four could be argued as having anything near what constitutes full-blown loli attributes, much less being indefinitely loli. This is one of the most cut-and-dry decisions there is right now, and this is not loli.
Cannonball said:
The loli tag more or less refers to sexual content. There's nothing sexual here, just two girls playing on the beach in perfectly ordinary swimwear. Miyu might be embarrassed that you're staring, but undressing her with your eyes is not loli. You pervert.
Updated by JuniperAndFriends
post #1725068
Pretty clearly loli. Even though it's obvious he draws the guy way bigger than the girls, Ran still manages a taller torso than Yukari or Chen while they've got young faces and body features to boot.
The other is a bit more ambiguous thanks to angles, but Kaguya looks enough to warrant the tag if we must be safer than sorry.
Anonymous9000 said:
post #1208616
post #1205229
post #1204544
post #1242081
post #1237631
post #1230739
post #1200963
post #1259405
post #1259403
post #1258137
post #1288592
post #1334468
post #1387407
post #1387403
post #1359897
Ok... I checked the first two, the eighth, and I think I can come to this conclusion: Since they are nearly all of prepubescent boys, transvestite or not, they can warrant shota. All except for post #1334468, the characters here appear more physically mature, or at least as the art would implicate.
post #1537618 not sure if shota but he looks a little young compared to her
jjj14 said:
post #1537618 not sure if shota but he looks a little young compared to her
I would say no (mainly because he really is that short compared to Oono).
Updated by Kadoya
jjj14 said:
post #1537618 not sure if shota but he looks a little young compared to her
I would say no due to pubic hair...
post #1747534 certainly doesn't count as shota for tagging purposes, if you ask me.
post #1762091
It's borderline questionable rating.
