tapnek said:
post #4261953 and children
I would go not loli but the vulva and hips say otherwise.
I'd say not loli
Posted under General
tapnek said:
post #4261953 and children
I would go not loli but the vulva and hips say otherwise.
I'd say not loli
post #4493946 I think this is loli, not so sure about oppai loli. Honestly the proportions and child like features led me to tag it as such but could use a second opinion.
I tagged post #4096441 as loli a while ago but I now want a second opinion if it still counts even though it's not sexual at all.
tapnek said:
I tagged post #4096441 as loli a while ago but I now want a second opinion if it still counts even though it's not sexual at all.
I'd go with questionable but not loli.
Does the post #4497841 warrant to be tagged loli?
There sure as hell is not anything explicit going on and while the choice of swimwear is curious, i dont think it even falls under questionable.
Am i wrong?
Tomzai said:
Does the post #4497841 warrant to be tagged loli?
There sure as hell is not anything explicit going on and while the choice of swimwear is curious, i dont think it even falls under questionable.
Am i wrong?
Childlike proportions + micro bikini qualifies as loli to me, and loli/shota automatically bumps up the rating
Even if there's nothing "explicit" present, micro bikinis are designed specifically to be sexually provocative. They might as well be nude.
blindVigil said:
Childlike proportions + micro bikini qualifies as loli to me, and loli/shota automatically bumps up the rating
Even if there's nothing "explicit" present, micro bikinis are designed specifically to be sexually provocative. They might as well be nude.
Going by that logic that would make all posts with micro bikinis be questionable.
Tomzai said:
Going by that logic that would make all posts with micro bikinis be questionable.
The almost 14K images under nude rating:safe disagrees with you.
Tomzai said:
Going by that logic that would make all posts with micro bikinis be questionable.
My point wasn't that micro bikinis by themselves are enough to up the rating, otherwise we wouldn't have 5.4k images in micro_bikini rating:s. Micro bikinis however definitely toe the line, and putting what looks like a child in one definitely steps over that line, at least in my opinion.
Unbreakable said:
The almost 14K images under nude rating:safe disagrees with you.
And by a quick look shows that a majority of them are strategically cropped to hide anything explicit, bath shots were nipples ect are obstructed by shampoo bottles, water, ect, monster girls that dont have visible genitals, chibis that dont show anything either.
Nude doesn't always necessitate explicit.
Not really a good counter argument now is it.
blindVigil said:
My point wasn't that micro bikinis by themselves are enough to up the rating, otherwise we wouldn't have 5.4k images in micro_bikini rating:s. Micro bikinis however definitely toe the line, and putting what looks like a child in one definitely steps over that line, at least in my opinion.
Fair, but i disagree, contest and ask for second opinion. While it's revealing, it still covers everything that should be covered. Going by same train of thought every child looking male with swim briefs should be tagged shota just because its swim briefs.
In my opinion it would be questionable and child at worst.
Tomzai said:
Nude doesn't always necessitate explicit.
You're right, it doesn't, but nude -rating:s accounts for 230k images, 16 times the safe nude count. So not always, but almost always. Similarly, micro_bikini -rating:s is 15k, 3 times the amount of safe micro bikini posts.
Tomzai said:
Going by same train of thought every child looking male with swim briefs should be tagged shota just because its swim briefs.
Swim briefs weren't designed specifically to cover as little as possible for the sake of sexual allure, not a good comparison. "Banana hammocks" would be a better equivalent, and there's a good chance I would tag that shota.
Besides that ... the girls are trying to elicit sexual desire in the boys presented in the pic. NFCM? So with that in mind ... Questionable Motives, Questionable Rating and yeah it's loli. I'm not going to check but I'm pretty sure I've seen that costume in a loli doujin before.
Please confirm if the following posts should be tagged loli. (Personally I feel they should be, but they weren't tagged as such, and just want to make sure)
Death_Usagi said:
Please confirm if the following posts should be tagged loli. (Personally I feel they should be, but they weren't tagged as such, and just want to make sure)
post #4501271 yes -- her thighs might be normal but that upper body fools nobody
post #4500580/child yes -- looks pretty underdeveloped and small body size
Need help if this post #4503243 should be tagged loli though I am leaning I should be tagging it as such, but not too sure.