post #704416
Specifically, the girl on the left.
Posted under General
post #704416
Specifically, the girl on the left.
I'd like thoughts on a couple of images I've happened upon recently.
post #685370 (tender, but not sexual, so probably not loli)
post #704292 (I'd say Jakuri on the right is pretty clearly not, but opinions on Ar Ru would be nice)
Apollyon said:
post #704416
Specifically, the girl on the left.
With a size difference like that, it's pretty ambiguous. I wouldn't have tagged it that way, but I'm not convinced enough to remove the tag after the fact.
Solamarle said:
post #685370 (tender, but not sexual, so probably not loli)
Don't know if obvious yuri images get a bump upward on the loli scale in cases like this or not.
I'm inclined to say it's closer to child than loli, though.
post #704292 (I'd say Jakuri on the right is pretty clearly not, but opinions on Ar Ru would be nice)
You're right about Jakuri there (surprising), but Ar Ru does seem to fit the qualifier, what with the visible cameltoe and all.
Removed loli from post #685370.
Ars said:post #708522
Absolutely loli, with less clothing would be practically toddlercon. No maturity in the body structure at all.
Xabid said:
post #604325
Petite, not loli.
hidetheunforgiven said:
pool #722
It's probably the face. I'd say no as well.
Hillside_Moose said:
(post #604325) Petite, not loli.
I disagree. The body of the small girl displays no secondary sex characteristics, and - given the significant difference in size between her and all the other women in the pic - looks quite physically underdeveloped. petite must display some visible degree of physical maturity to distinguish it from loli.
Really, the only part that's up for debate here is whether that's a loli or a trap.
pool #722: A combination of the boyish face, the body-size difference between the guy and the woman, and the fact that Gotou didn't draw him with a gigantic penis is what gives the illusion of shota. Given the defined musculature and the very conspicuous pubic hair, however, I'm going to say this is most certainly not shota. Removing tags.
sgcdonmai said:
I disagree. The body of the small girl displays no secondary sex characteristics, and - given the significant difference in size between her and all the other women in the pic - looks quite physically underdeveloped. petite must display some visible degree of physical maturity to distinguish it from loli.Really, the only part that's up for debate here is whether that's a loli or a trap.
The small girl's face looks more like a teenager's than a child's, her torso is significantly longer than a child's, and she has a filled-out ass. What she is lacking are breasts, and that alone isn't enough for a loli verdict, unless if you follow Australia's retarded guidelines. As for the large women, my impression is of normal girls about to get snu-snu'd by a pair of Amazons.
Regardless, it's nowhere as clear-cut as you make it out to be. I would still like to get other opinions.
Edit: Referring to post #604325, now that we're on a different page.
When I said "no secondary sex characteristics", I meant exactly that. That is a bony ass, not filled out. (And asymmetrical, at that.) The hips show no signs of pubescent widening. The face does not at all look like a teenager's, to me. The torso length measurement you're using is clearly wrong, as children's limbs grow out more slowly than their torsos.
If you look closely (very closely) at the place where her arm crosses her chest, you can see what I think the base of the smaller girl's breasts -- they're small, and covered by her arm and the fact that she's facing away into a much-larger woman... to the point where there's barely more than a few pixels showing where they start, but I think they are there.
For post #604325 - I just don't see the loli. I know I'm a lot less inclined to tag loli than sgc is, but even so, if those girls weren't standing next to the two huge ones, I doubt this would come up for debate. Maybe if it were more explicit, or a different pose, or whatever, I might feel differently, but looking at it as is I don't see why it should get loli. Removing.
Xabid said:
If you look closely (very closely) at the place where her arm crosses her chest, you can see what I think the base of the smaller girl's breasts
If you follow the line, you'll see that the part you noticed is actually the sideboob of the woman she's pressed against.
But, eh.
Came across these while searching the Mitsudomoe tag.
post #577046
post #710719
post #700488
post #679950
post #419656
post #313591
Updated by user 326669
post #577046: No particular frame of reference that isn't metaknowledge here. Knowing squat about the show, I don't see loli when I look at it, so, no.
post #710719: Bathing is too innocent for the loli tag, even when there's a bit of female-on-female boob-groping going on.
post #700488: Too much hip and boob to look loli.
post #679950: Significantly too much boob for the loli tag.
post #419656: Already tagged child, which is correct. That's clearly a fabric seam, not cameltoe.
post #313591: Sorry, I'm unable to look far enough past the utterly crap art to judge it clearly.
loli wiki entry says:
This tag implies sexually explicit or suggestive (not safe for work) art works of girls who appear to be preadolescent. Please note it doesn't matter whether the character is canonically of age -- if they look like kids, they are loli for the purpose of tagging.
You clearly didn't read it very well.
Remember the Danbooru tagging axiom: "Tag based on what you see, not based on what you know."