post #1088892
Loli or no? I'm not very sure on this. theres nothing sexual about it and it is censored, but she is still naked and everything.
Posted under General
post #1088892
Loli or no? I'm not very sure on this. theres nothing sexual about it and it is censored, but she is still naked and everything.
just saying agian in case this was not seen : post #1057549
CodeKyuubi said:
post #1086704I have no idea what this should be tagged as.
I'm very hesistantly voting no based on torso length. It's close enough that I wouldn't want it on my hard drive, though.
Myrokratios said:
I found some pictures of Daidouji Kira which are incorrectly tagged as loli, since they don't really show any naughty bits. However, they have slight cases of cameltoes, so I'm not completely sure in that regard.
Cameltoes are grounds for rating:questionable according to howto:rate. That means they're ground for loli in my opinion, especially in combo with all the loli fetish items in the images (school swimsuit, randoseru). I'm retagging three of them.
Zekana said:
post #1088892
Loli or no? I'm not very sure on this. theres nothing sexual about it and it is censored, but she is still naked and everything.
I kind of want to just tag this child, but there's the labiocrural folds there in a somewhat prominent focus of the image, so I don't quite want to change it.
Nials said:
just saying agian in case this was not seen : post #1057549
Gonna vote no. It's hard to tell her body proportions from the perspective shown, but the face doesn't scan as childlike to me.
Myrokratios said:
Daidouji Kira
They all look much too tame to me.
Zekana said:
post #1088892
I tagged that one because the angle and the steam itself place the focus of the image on her censored genitals.
There are also
post #1088918
post #1088893 tagged that child since there's really nothing visible from behind. Could actually be rated safe as "nonsexual nudity".
post #1088909
S1eth said:
There are also
post #1088918
post #1088893 tagged that child since there's really nothing visible from behind. Could actually be rated safe as "nonsexual nudity".
post #1088909
post #1088918 and post #1088909 I would tag loli due to the amount of frontal skin they're showing. I'm less inclined for post #1088893 due to the "Coppertone" shot, but I'm still leaning towards loli out of caution.
Updated by Hillside Moose
I'm inclined towards tagging it loli.
I don't see it.
She looks quite a bit too old, given her waist, ass (waist-hip ratio) and quite well developed breasts. Only her head is bigger than it would be if she were a 3d human. If you scroll down enough so that her head isn't visible, I doubt that anyone would see a child here.
I added loli just in case.
S1eth said:
Yes, why not? You wouldn't say anything if she wore a bikini instead.
Maybe if she also wasn't on a bed and with an expression that said "sex imminent," but for me, it falls more into the catch-all clause for questionable than the one for safe.
Moot for this thread either way, since she looks too old.
Rastamepas said:
post #1092596
Yeah, keep the tag. In that overlap territory between sorta chibi and loli.
Updated by BCI Temp
post #1096260 I don't even know from how bad the art is.
post #1092581 Loli.
post #1098184 Very loli.
post #1096260
face and short arms say yes, thighs say no, torso doesn't work that way. No idea what to with this except flag it for bad anatomy.
post #1098184
without a question ,explicit.
age: young enough; very large head, low eyes
post #1092581
Is would say no, because:
context: casual nudity on a beach, a girl happily adorning herself with flowers (lei)
genitalia are completely covered.