The New Rating:s and Loli

AngryZapdos said:

Are you suggesting that posts with a blatantly focused view up a child's dress at their underwear aren't enough for loli?

That description is grossly misreprepresenting the actual situation. Bloomers are not on the same level as panties. There's no cameltoe, no fluids, no body steam, absolutely nothing sexual whatsoever. That post would not be considered problematic anywhere.

So I reiterate: If we're tagging that loli, then we might as well alias child to loli, because if that's loli, then everything on the site is.

We should just state that child tag shouldn't be used in any rating other than general, especially for solo

If it's not safe enough for general and not lewd enough to be loli, then 1girl rating:sensetive should be enough.

punished_K said:

Those bloomers are 100% non-sexual.

The view up her dress is one of two main focal points of the image, the other being her face. This isn't some skirt-flipping gag in an anime that lasts for but a few frames, it's a standalone illustration - the artist has frozen a moment in time specifically to be looked at, and they deliberately chose this angle in order to bring attention to and highlight her underwear. It's not like the bloomers are peeking out from the bottom of a skirt; they've been put on blatant display, along with her crotch. I can't believe there's opposition to tagging a post focused on a little girl's underwear with loli.

punished_K said:

If you're getting aroused by that you might have issues.

Next time, keep the petty insults to yourself and try providing some actual arguments.

Oniii-chan said:

We should just state that child tag shouldn't be used in any rating other than general, especially for solo

If it's not safe enough for general and not lewd enough to be loli, then 1girl rating:sensetive should be enough.

I'd say only for solo -animated. If there's a child in the image who is not the reason or connected to the reason why the post isn't rated g then it doesn't make sense to refuse them the child tag just because another character makes the image warrant a higher rating. The -animated is there because of animated age progressions.

evazion said:

Loli can be used on rating:sensitive posts if they're lewd enough. I hesitate to go so far as to say it should be used on all rating:sensitive child posts. But it definitely should be used on bikinis and other highly suggestive things.

I don't want to restrict posts any more than I have to. But if people are starting to use child on sexualized content then I have to. Frankly I wish people had never made the female child tag to begin with. It's just a really bad look to use the word "child" on anything remotely lewd. And it gets even worse when you start categorizing pictures of children by age and gender and what they're wearing. That makes even the most innocent posts look suspect.

Ideally the child tag would be 100% safe. I'm talking safe enough to show your mother. This does leave a gap where something might not be suggestive enough for loli, but too suggestive for child. I have no solution for this other than to say: don't go around tagging child on everything and forcing my hand.

Don't read too much into the naming of is:sfw. It's just a shortcut for rating:g,s, as a counterpart to is:nsfw and a replacement for the old rating:safe search. It's not literally safe for work in the same way the old Safe rating wasn't safe for work. The Sensitive rating isn't considered safe for work, it's the grey area between safe and unsafe.

I've been meaning to reply to this forum for a bit but recent matters took more precedence.

1st, I agree with Veradux that shota and loli should be used for sensitive.

post like this one post #5420579

No genitals or private parts are being shown but it feels wrong using "male_child" for such as post. However, from my understanding it's clearly not lewd enough for danbooru to classify it as "shota"? and yes, I asked in the discord what the rating should be before I posted it.

and what about my upload of post #5289526 before the naming convention of female child and male child. Not lewd enough to be tagged as a shota but that's what I think of it as "sfw shota". Where his calves are made bigger (fatter) to be more sexualized.

Moreover, I don't think nuking the female child or male child is a good idea. There is a crowd of people that is hungry for this type of content. People who would like to search for non-lewd lolis and shotas but until the female child and male child tag was created it was hard to search for it (or at times impossible to search for)

and also I'm glad that the creation of the tags are making us discuss this. It seems like we've been avoiding the issue because we want to refuse to admit how popular lolis and shotas are or at the very least keep payment processors happy.

if the child tag is only to be used for 100 % sfw then I will tag my future uploads as shota/loli if they're sexual in anyway and male_child if the post is general.

Oniii-chan said:

We should just state that child tag shouldn't be used in any rating other than general, especially for solo

If it's not safe enough for general and not lewd enough to be loli, then 1girl rating:sensetive should be enough.

No, it really isn't enough. The reason why this issue exist is because people want to find such content where they want a non-lewd loli.
If we just label it 1girl rating:sensitive then it gets lost in the multitude of pics of older women. You would need 3 tags to search for what you want

1girl rating:sensitive and flat_chest which is fine if you have a gold account but most regular members can only search for 2 tags at a time.

and honestly, even when you do all that... those post that come up that we're too scared to label loli or female_child for one reason or another probably should be labeled as a loli anyway, especially something like post #5514359

idk maybe you guys will tell me that she's just petite.

Now alternatively, one could just use 1girl flat_chest but that would just get you back to mostly "lolis" anyway which are mostly explicit on the site and if the goal is to find non-lewd lolis then it's again lost in the shuffle of unwanted pics.

Also as you can see from this discussion a lot of us draw the line at different points. One guys female_child is another's loli because it's not lewd enough or it meets that threshold of being just lewd enough to warrent the label/tag.

But in my honest opinion, this problem can easily be solved if we take Veradux suggestion and just drop the requirement of lolis and shotas to be used for sensitive.

That way members who want to find such content of a loli-looking girl that's not that lewd can easily do so.

Lastly, as a guy who's very active in these communities nobody ever thinks of these fictional characters as "female child" or "male child". We all use Shota and Loli anyway. Whether the artist is making it NSFW or not. They never ever say "Here's my drawing of a sfw female child" it's usually "Here's my drawing of a sfw loli" only on the boorus do we steer away from such terminology unless it's explicit and I really wish we wouldn't.

jay19 said:

But in my honest opinion, this problem can easily be solved if we take Veradux suggestion and just drop the requirement of lolis and shotas to be used for sensitive.

That way members who want to find such content of a loli-looking girl that's not that lewd can easily do so.

Lastly, as a guy who's very active in these communities nobody ever thinks of these fictional characters as "female child" or "male child". We all use Shota and Loli anyway. Whether the artist is making it NSFW or not. They never ever say "Here's my drawing of a sfw female child" it's usually "Here's my drawing of a sfw loli" only on the boorus do we steer away from such terminology unless it's explicit and I really wish we wouldn't.

There's a problem being overlooked with just broadening what can be tagged loli/shota. Member level users, which make up the vast majority, cannot interact with loli/shota posts in any way. The more you loosen what those tags are for, the more content you're hiding from most users. Users below Gold would actually have an even more difficult time finding "sfw lolis" with our current restrictions on those tags than they currently do with their two tag limit, they wouldn't be able to find them at all.

Unless the admins change the method used to hide "explicit lolis" from Members and logged out users, the current way we define loli/shota cannot be changed, because it serves a secondary purpose.

Also, to consider, Sensitive is the catch-all for anything that can't be General. General is so strict, there are lots of things that can be Sensitive despite being essentially devoid of actual sexual content. Just blanket tagging loli/shota on anything that isn't General is extremely heavy handed and reductive.

jay19 said:

If we just label it 1girl rating:sensitive then it gets lost in the multitude of pics of older women. You would need 3 tags to search for what you want
1girl rating:sensitive and flat_chest which is fine if you have a gold account but most regular members can only search for 2 tags at a time.

Just FYI, we don’t cater to the two tags limit for members. That shouldn’t be a consideration when tagging things. Also, the rating meta tag is free and doesn’t count towards the two tags limit.

@AngryZapdos said:

What of post #5499526? I tagged it as loli because of the clear focus on the underwear but it was changed to female_child.

It's only S because it's nightwear, but it's not really sexually suggestive, despite the focus. Borderline G with how tame the bloomers are; they're basically shorts but the material makes it nightwear. And at least it's not full-body nightwear; the rest of the character is decent. It's only slightly less decent than a misaka_mikoto upskirt.

LQ said:

It's only S because it's nightwear, but it's not really sexually suggestive, despite the focus. Borderline G with how tame the bloomers are; they're basically shorts but the material makes it nightwear. And at least it's not full-body nightwear; the rest of the character is decent. It's only slightly less decent than a misaka mikoto upskirt.

While it might be unclear whether it's rating:s or rating:q, it's very much not rating:g.

LQ said:

Anything borderline should go to S. There's no "borderline G".

kittey said:

Just FYI, we don’t cater to the two tags limit for members. That shouldn’t be a consideration when tagging things. Also, the rating meta tag is free and doesn’t count towards the two tags limit.

hmm didn't realize the meta tag was free but that was my point that you would need several tags to make it work but if the meta tag is indeed free well never mind. I still say to make such searches easier the tag of loli should be added though. The person is still basically looking for a loli.

blindVigil said:

There's a problem being overlooked with just broadening what can be tagged loli/shota. Member level users, which make up the vast majority, cannot interact with loli/shota posts in any way. The more you loosen what those tags are for, the more content you're hiding from most users. Users below Gold would actually have an even more difficult time finding "sfw lolis" with our current restrictions on those tags than they currently do with their two tag limit, they wouldn't be able to find them at all.

Unless the admins change the method used to hide "explicit lolis" from Members and logged out users, the current way we define loli/shota cannot be changed, because it serves a secondary purpose.

Also, to consider, Sensitive is the catch-all for anything that can't be General. General is so strict, there are lots of things that can be Sensitive despite being essentially devoid of actual sexual content. Just blanket tagging loli/shota on anything that isn't General is extremely heavy handed and reductive.

Your points are valid but I don't see a solution where everybody is going to end up happy. I do think the female_child tag is valid because it forces us to think should this post be classified as a loli or not. It seems to me that we don't want to use it because it brings some uncomfortable truths to the forefront. But I said my piece.

blindVigil said:

There's a problem being overlooked with just broadening what can be tagged loli/shota. Member level users, which make up the vast majority, cannot interact with loli/shota posts in any way. The more you loosen what those tags are for, the more content you're hiding from most users. Users below Gold would actually have an even more difficult time finding "sfw lolis" with our current restrictions on those tags than they currently do with their two tag limit, they wouldn't be able to find them at all.

Unless the admins change the method used to hide "explicit lolis" from Members and logged out users, the current way we define loli/shota cannot be changed, because it serves a secondary purpose.

Also, to consider, Sensitive is the catch-all for anything that can't be General. General is so strict, there are lots of things that can be Sensitive despite being essentially devoid of actual sexual content. Just blanket tagging loli/shota on anything that isn't General is extremely heavy handed and reductive.

This is in no way overlooked. Anonymous browsers finding sexualized children that where technically "safe" was one of the reasons for splitting the tag in the first place. Admittedly this could have been fixed by more stringent enforcement of the "children are rated more harshly" rule.

Hiding sexy kids from non paying members is necessary since those include people that can cut of our ability to make money. There is some kind of irony in that people that want to pay for loli cant because there is to much "loli" for free.