Not sure if this is non-sexual enough to have the loli tag removed, or if it's risque enough to warrant being bumped up to a questionable rating.
Posted under General
Not sure if this is non-sexual enough to have the loli tag removed, or if it's risque enough to warrant being bumped up to a questionable rating.
post #764980
flat chest, small torso, but wide hips, mature face.
Generally weird body proportions.
post #20643? It seems more "teen" than "loli" to me.
jjj14 said:
post #20643? It seems more "teen" than "loli" to me.
Looking at the hands, I don't think the artist has a very good concept of anatomical proportion going, so I wouldn't count the hips as evidence against it.
The rest of the elements of that image being fairly inconclusive, I'll mentally file this one under "wouldn't add or remove tag".
I'm honestly more concerned that half-assed game cg pics like that one was approved. Not exactly a shining example of quality artwork.
sgcdonmai said:
I'm honestly more concerned that half-assed game cg pics like that one was approved. Not exactly a shining example of quality artwork.
It was uploaded four years ago. Note that it has an ID in the 20 thousands.
Honestly, I'm tempted to just axe it. Its pretty terrible (what the hell is up with their faces?)
Cyberia-Mix said: post #650394
Definitely not loli. Heck I'm even changing it to safe.
This doesn't look at all loli-ish to me. The girl on the left clearly has breasts and hips, and the other one doesn't have any visible signs of being underage either. I was about to chalk this up to a mistake and just correct it myself. But then I took a peek into the log and saw who it was that had added that tag (*looks up three posts*) and then thought I'd better bring the matter up for discussion before changing anything...
Wild guess - canonically underage character who is always assumed to be their canonical age in a picture, unless they are clearly drawn as an older adult version of themselves?
CountPacula said: post #293678
Removed it.
Wild guess - canonically underage character who is always assumed to be their canonical age in a picture, unless they are clearly drawn as an older adult version of themselves?
Canonical age does not factor into loli decisions.
jxh2154 said:
Definitely not loli. Heck I'm even changing it to safe.
Actually this makes me realize that child + ass is wrong enough already, at least to me (the very first results are also tagged cameltoe, trefoil or fat_mons, what the hell).
post #635094 isn't that suggestive in comparison, but I don't see the no_panties part being here only for the fun factor.
CountPacula said:
post #293678
(...)
Wild guess - canonically underage character who is always assumed to be their canonical age in a picture, unless they are clearly drawn as an older adult version of themselves?
Hardly. Canonicity doesn't come into play in tagging. Besides, Konata is canonically 18+.
It's been too long to remember my motivations for tagging at the time, but from an offhand visual inspection, I would say that at the very least, the character on the right does look quite a bit younger than the character on the left. Her torso is slender, with no discernible pubescent hip growth (visible around the posterior), and is significantly shorter in length than that of the more noticeably mature girl on the left. Any other evidence of pubescence (genital hair, breast growth, etc.) is not visible, and so cannot factor in.
Given the slight ambiguity in the age of the girl on the right (hell, even the gender is ambiguous on such a figure), I would err on the side of tagging it, until and unless a mod decides it shouldn't be there. Which has occurred, so no complaints from me.
Cyberia-Mix said: Actually this makes me realize that child + ass is wrong enough already
Not necessarily. A bare-ass kid can be in an image without making it loli if there's nothing sexual about the nudity (like, bathing with parents or something). I suppose it's questionable whether it would be worth tagging ass on such a picture though.
If I see an ass, then the ass tag belongs there. It's not complicated; any sexual tinge to the buttocks is circumstantial, not inherent.
If the camera is close-up on the ass (e.g. post #727059), then yeah, I'd argue that the image is too sexualized for child.
That doesn't mean even a bare ass can't be a nonsexual element (e.g. post #580354).
post #767414
post #767416
post #767423
post #767424
Tagged both as loli, but janitors\moderators might have a bit different opinion than mine.
Updated by HNTI
I don't really understand how this warrants the loli tag, noticing her chest.
The two of Collet didn't seem to qualify, in terms of body proportion. The other two, I'm less certain of.
internetlovemachine said:
post #278859
I don't really understand how this warrants the loli tag, noticing her chest.
That size of chest can sometimes be on the borderline, really, because a lot of loli artists use sizes like that, or exaggerate the "they look larger when she's in that position" effect. The overall body proportions are much more reliable, especially head size-to-other parts comparisons.
As it happens, though, nothing in this particular image makes me think "loli" in any way at all. Removed.