I'm in doubt about this post. Does she count as loli? post #4097608
Posted under General
I'm in doubt about this post. Does she count as loli? post #4097608
mongirlfan said:
I'm in doubt about this post. Does she count as loli? post #4097608
No.
Pubic hair usually contradicts loli, right? Not that I think this is very loli even without that.
Is post #2702103 loli?
blindVigil said:
Pubic hair usually contradicts loli, right? Not that I think this is very loli even without that.
Pubic hair would not automatically counter loli but no, this isnt loli.
Dudamel said:
Is post #2702103 loli?
Leaning towards yes.
Nothing in the image itself looks pre-adolescent. Her hips and thighs look more like those of a grown woman than a child. The only way this post can be considered loli is by taking the parent post into account, and anyone who blacklists loli wouldn't be able to see that anyway.
Do we tag this post based on TWYS, or do we have to consider the outside context as well?
I can't see it, but the version on pixiv only seems to be a pantyshot. There are a few others of klee and panties which are not tagged loli.
thelieutenant said:
Sexually suggestive images of preadolescent girls are loli, even if they're "only" pantyshots. This one is has deep cameltoe and is zoomed in on her ass, so the question of whether it's sexually suggestive really isn't up for debate.
It's kind of hard to get a sense of her overall body proportions based on the angle, but from what can be seen, her limbs look short enough to say that this is borderline loli. Even considering the extra chub the artist added to her buttocks and thighs, I'd hesitate to remove the tag.
user #589403 just uploaded a bunch of non-loli pictures tagged as loli (and some safe as questionable), a mod might want to give them a pointer on howto:tag.
Is this really loli
post #4189229
Tomzai said:
Is this really loli
post #4189229
Not even remotely loli, just flat.
On that note, the person who tagged that post loli has made loads of similar edits that might need review. The loli tag seems justified on a lot of those posts, but a significant fraction of these edits seem suspect. I'm not sure how anyone can look at post #4123112 or post #4176372 or post #4191914 and conclude that the girl is pre-adolescent.
iridescent_slime said:
Not even remotely loli, just flat.
On that note, the person who tagged that post loli has made loads of similar edits that might need review. The loli tag seems justified on a lot of those posts, but a significant fraction of these edits seem suspect. I'm not sure how anyone can look at post #4123112 or post #4176372 or post #4191914 and conclude that the girl is pre-adolescent.
A lot of those posts don't look loli at all to me, just petite or flat chest. I've sent the user a DM.
Unbreakable said:
Could honestly go either way, artist intent seems to be a little girl however.
Leaning towards loli.
Unbreakable said:
Leaning towards loli.
Agree.
This was weird.
As soon as I uploaded this one, it tells me I need a gold account to view it. Most likely because I tagged it as loli, as did the artist, but.... There's a shitload of sakuna-hime art that *isn't* tagged as such, so can a mod or something take a look at this and decide? And if not, can it be made viewable?
VSD02C said:
Loli applies only to nsfw images.