Loli/shota check thread.

Posted under General

Giulio64 said:

post #9492490

Many of the artist's works aren't tagged loli, even when explicit, but this one straight up says the girl is underage (at least, I think that's what the number represents?).
If so, the child post #9469257 should be tagged loli too, I think?

As is stated in the first sentence of the wiki, canonical age has absolutely no bearing on whether loli does or does not apply.

ANON_TOKYO said:

As is stated in the first sentence of the wiki, canonical age has absolutely no bearing on whether loli does or does not apply.

Even when the post itself has (what I think is) the age in it? And it's not like the character doesn't already look young.

Giulio64 said:

Even when the post itself has (what I think is) the age in it? And it's not like the character doesn't already look young.

If there were exceptions, that's where they'd be listed. The characters looking young should be the only thing taken into account.

That said, I personally think this post doesn't quite look loli.

Giulio64 said:

Even when the post itself has (what I think is) the age in it? And it's not like the character doesn't already look young.

It's her age, and if we did take it into account, it wouldn't be low enough for loli. The tag is for girls that look prepubescent.

If we took age into account, characters like Fal would be tagged as loli (and even toddlercon) while characters like Oshino Shinobu wouldn't. That's why we only consider their appearance.