rollingstart said:
Nothing sexual in that picture, so no. The parent of that post is definitely sexual, which is why it's tagged with shota.
Posted under General
rollingstart said:
Nothing sexual in that picture, so no. The parent of that post is definitely sexual, which is why it's tagged with shota.
Purokuri said:
Not loli.
Clearly not pre-pubertal.
Not sure if this really counts as both loli and shota.
this got mistakenly tagged
Please check post #2157841. I believe it needs the tag. Thank you.
Girl doesn't really look like a loli and it's hard to tell if the boy is a shota.
I tagged this image quite a while back, with the intent to ask someone about it, but I completely forgot. It has a ton of child posts too, and I didn't want to tag them all and find out I was mistaken.
I believe the character depicted is canonically 12 or 13, but the character in this post and its children appear, to me, much younger.
This one, drawn by the same artist, has a similar appearance but maybe slightly older. Although this artist has many images in the same apparent series that could reasonably be tagged as loli, in my opinion. But that's a big assertion, so I'll defer that judgement to someone else.
post #2195140
I posted it mit a safe rating, but I'm not so sure about this.
And another question: Does a questionable rating "implicate" the loli (or shota) tag?