Posted under General
Hillside_Moose said:
I'm sorry, but I'm re-adding loli to post #919190, post #760776, and post #860832. The context may be innocent, but they are still very nude.
By your logic post #768439 and many other similar images that portray flat-chested or otherwise young-looking women in the nude would all have to be tagged as loli even when they are not sexually explicit. I don't see how any of those three images can be considered sufficiently pornographic to warrant a loli tag.
Has a parent post that is taged "loli". I'd assume it's the same picture.
JackyHF said:
post #468889Has a parent post that is taged "loli". I'd assume it's the same picture.
Yeah that's pretty definitely loli, in a few ways.
Hillside_Moose said: I'm sorry, but I'm re-adding loli to post #919190, post #760776, and post #860832. The context may be innocent, but they are still very nude.
They're borderline - relatively safe nudity, but very clearly "loli" body types. I'd leave the tag on in this case, but it's a close call.
yua_(your_diary) (apologies if individual posts have been discussed by now)
Updated by NeverGonnaGive
post #1005156
Eh, no.
post #578018
No.
post #1005900
Legs and torso suggest a teen frame, so no.
post #880990
I'd say it's loli.
yua_(your_diary)
I would say a flat teen here as well.
post #1012638? I tagged loli to be on the safe side.
There's nothing really questionable about what she's doing, it's more the amount of ass showing. Tagged it loli to be on the safe side.
Edit: Hadn't noticed that the image had essentially already been posted, added it as a parent post. Requesting that the loli tag gets removed or added to the other image for consistancy.
Updated by user 356931
loli is not synonymous with child rating:e, nor is child synonymous with loli rating:q. It's tasteful nudity, yes, but it's still a nude girl with an undeveloped body.
Updated by Hillside Moose
Hillside_Moose said:
loli is not synonymous with child rating:e, nor is child synonymous with loli rating:q. It's tasteful nudity, yes, but it's still a nude girl with an undeveloped body.
For the most part, I agree that one should consider images with childish characters under stricter scrutiny than those without.
However, one of the truly crucial elements to consider is the degree of sexualization present in an image. Time and again, we have judged images of nude children in clearly non-sexual situations and poses to be not deserving of the loli tag.
loli
This tag implies sexually explicit or suggestive (not safe for work) art works of girls who appear to be preadolescent.
e.g.: Children bathing nude, without sexual touching or posing, and without a camera angle focused on their genitals, would be considered child rather than loli, due to the innocent nature of such a scenario.
Under such a precedent, I would definitely consider post #1012638 too innocent for the loli tag.
Whether it ought to be rated Q at all is, I think, a subject best discussed at forum #37461.
