Frankly, I wonder if many cagliostro_(granblue_fantasy) explicit images should be loli...
Posted under General
Frankly, I wonder if many cagliostro_(granblue_fantasy) explicit images should be loli...
Ai-to-Yukai said:
Frankly, I wonder if many cagliostro_(granblue_fantasy) explicit images should be loli...
I don't see why^^. Maybe she has a flat chest or small breasts but this doesn't qualify for loli at all if the face looks mature and the rest of her body as well. ecause we have to look at the whole thing^^. And those post doesn't look loli to me at all.
@tapnek It is on the edge in my opinion. But if in doubt I'd always let it flow as not loli because the consequence would be a censorship^^.
post #2163753
I'm unsure about this. What do you think?
fossilnix said:
That's loli.
Looks too old to be shota for me.
Unsure if this deserves the loli tag.
tapnek said:
Unsure if this deserves the loli tag.
has a topless apparently-prepubescent-girl
I'd say yes
Difficult to explain because we might have another idea of what is sexually suggestive.
But in my opinion a bare back and the picture as a whole thing (i.e. large breasts of the...ehm..bigger one, only underwaer (here: panties/topless) of the child/loli-characte). But even if it's not the image as a whole, here is another picture that could be considered questionable because of a bare back and underwear only: post #2245996.
Nearly the same picture but this time less bare skin...
post #2264635
Provence said:
Nearly the same picture but this time less bare skin...
post #2264635
Yes, I just forgot the tag. Both times. Apologies.
Provence said:
Nearly the same picture but this time less bare skin...
post #2264635
The hips are too wide for loli.