Posted under General
sgcdonmai said:
post #656189: Yes; the body shape and style definitely fits.
That has too much boobs to be loli, and not enough figure. IMHO, sprouting boobs should disqualify you from being loli almost automatically.
post #655508: Same here.
Definitely not. The face is not childish, neither is the figure. She's just completely flat, but so far only Australia believes that to be equal with being underage.
post #172322? I see breasts... or maybe that's supposed to be a collarbone/sternum.
葉月 said:
(post #656189) That has too much boobs to be loli, and not enough figure. IMHO, sprouting boobs should disqualify you from being loli almost automatically.
That level of "breast growth" is indistinguishable from baby fat, and should not be construed as a sign of development.
I did also mention the body shape and art style. Those cinch it for me.
(post #655508)
The face is not childish, neither is the figure.
The face looks plenty childish to me. As for the figure, the torso appears to be roughly cylindrical, and no further estimate of her proportions is possible via the image presented. That's far enough over the borderline to deserve it.
jjj14 said:
post #172322? I see breasts... or maybe that's supposed to be a collarbone/sternum.
That's the sternum, alright. No breasts.
First time uplaoding this kind of stuff. Is that loli? I hope it doesn't get deleted, I want to contribute more <.<
Since there's no futa-specific "underage" tag, would this be young-looking enough for loli?
Considering the gender ambiguity at young ages (due to lack of developed secondary sex characteristics, and art often exaggerating this) I would be hesitant to tag that futanari rather than shota + trap without corroboration from artist's commentary or pixiv tags.
You can't see whether there's a vagina on that body from here, after all.
sgcdonmai said:
Considering the gender ambiguity at young ages (due to lack of developed secondary sex characteristics, and art often exaggerating this) I would be hesitant to tag that futanari rather than shota + trap without corroboration from artist's commentary or pixiv tags.You can't see whether there's a vagina on that body from here, after all.
It's a fan-art of an original character by another artist: http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=10318210 It's tagged as ふたなり by that artist.
Actually, I've been wondering about that: How, exactly, should we deal with images that are based off of another artist's original character? I know if the character is posted on danbooru enough times we give it its own character tag, but that is not the case with this one.
Should post #316162 be tagged loli as it currently is? It's all conveniently censored and is non-sexually suggestive in nature. She's coming out of the bath.
Updated by imaliar
imaliar said:
Should post #316162 be tagged loli as it currently is? It's all conveniently censored and is non-sexually suggestive in nature. She's coming out of the bath.
Mmmm, I would say no as well for the reasons you've mentioned.
reese said:
post #259871
Very loli, yes.
imaliar said:
Should post #316162 be tagged loli as it currently is? It's all conveniently censored and is non-sexually suggestive in nature. She's coming out of the bath.
The censorship doesn't count for it or against it.
As for the other, I'm not entirely certain it's non-suggestive. Not enough to add or remove the tag, at any rate.
post #577508 isn't loli, right?
