CasualStan said:
I'm sorry, but asking if those two pictures are loli...is that a joke or am I missing something (like, a canonical age)?
Anyway, doesn't even remotely look like loli to me.
im new to seeing this crap, sorry about it
Posted under General
User.1196028 said:
im new to seeing this crap, sorry about it
Thats fair and all, but how on earth do you define the word "loli" if an obviously mature woman with fully developed breasts falls under it?
Thats not meant accusatory, I'm just trying to help clean up what seems to me like a misunderstanding of the underlying term :)
CasualStan said:
Thats fair and all, but how on earth do you define the word "loli" if an obviously mature woman with fully developed breasts falls under it?
Thats not meant accusatory, I'm just trying to help clean up what seems to me like a misunderstanding of the underlying term :)
i ahve no idea what u say but , a woman with fully developed body is okay, but having a minor's face on it is a problem to me, very big eyes...etc.. no chin.
User.1196028 said:
i ahve no idea what u say but , a woman with fully developed body is okay, but having a minor's face on it is a problem to me, very big eyes...etc.. no chin.
"Loli" means a very specific thing though, not just "things I dislike". If we'd apply your "definition" here, than all the pictures would be loli. Because thats just how the "anime/manga style" (in quotes because thats a super inaccurate expression) looks like.
Sounds to me as if you should reconsider if you even want to be here if you got a problem with this artstyle/group of artstyles.
CasualStan said:
"Loli" means a very specific thing though, not just "things I dislike". If we'd apply your "definition" here, than all the pictures would be loli. Because thats just how the "anime/manga style" (in quotes because thats a super inaccurate expression) looks like.
Sounds to me as if you should reconsider if you even want to be here if you got a problem with this artstyle/group of artstyles.
anyways thanks 4 ur time
post #6248471 (parent post, check the subposts)A variant of this was on the front page untagged. The no panties version of the parent post is tagged loli but the more explicit ones don't have that tag - someone explicitly removed it. Is this a mistag or a missing tag?
EDIT: Answered via Discord.
Updated
WeakestResUser said:
post #6248471 (parent post, check the subposts)A variant of this was on the front page untagged. The no panties version of the parent post is tagged loli but the more explicit ones don't have that tag - someone explicitly removed it. Is this a mistag or a missing tag?EDIT: Answered via Discord.
What was the answer you were given? I'd say the fellatio images are definitely not loli because of the body type, but it's not quite as clear for the other two (though I'm leaning toward no). However, the act of deliberately showing one's panties to the viewer is enough for a post to qualify for loli, so either both of them should be tagged or neither of them should be tagged.
Blank_User said:
What was the answer you were given? I'd say the fellatio images are definitely not loli because of the body type, but it's not quite as clear for the other two (though I'm leaning toward no). However, the act of deliberately showing one's panties to the viewer is enough for a post to qualify for loli, so either both of them should be tagged or neither of them should be tagged.
I'd personally say none of the images qualifies as loli, because the Wiki of the tag is clear about not using the tag on images where the characters shows clear signs of a developed body, such as slightly curvy hips. In the images shared by WeakestResUser, aris shows clear signs of a developed body, such as the aforementioned curvy hips and small but developed breasts. Her maid dress and the maid apron might get in the way, but if you pay attention to her chest and hips, you'll notice those characteristics.
Blank_User said:
What was the answer you were given? I'd say the fellatio images are definitely not loli because of the body type, but it's not quite as clear for the other two (though I'm leaning toward no). However, the act of deliberately showing one's panties to the viewer is enough for a post to qualify for loli, so either both of them should be tagged or neither of them should be tagged.
I don't recall whether others answered too, but my answer on Discord was "no" to the fellatio images because of the body type, like you described, and "probably" to the other ones.
c_spl said:
Petite.
santander said:
Definitely yes.
Also, does this count as yaoi? If not, could the rating be changed back to G? I changed it to S and left the tags on because I'm not sure which side of the line this falls on. I would think this would definitely be G if the younger boy wasn't blushing.
Blank_User said:
Doesn't look remotely suggestive to me IMO, even with the blush.
worldendDominator said:
Very borderline.
Scene is suggestive but no nudity or sexual act, character seems to have budding breasts and not super flat. But they are very small. I think its still not loli tag worthy but probably need more opinions.
Quaranta said:
She is a loli, and the swimsuit being partially undone is the final piece that deserves the loli tag.
Freshblink said:
She is a loli, and the swimsuit being partially undone is the final piece that deserves the loli tag.
A mere strap slip can hardly be considered partially undone. Aside from that, this is a standard old school swimsuit.
caps7 said:
A mere strap slip can hardly be considered partially undone. Aside from that, this is a standard old school swimsuit.
The overall presentation is still somewhat fanservicey. It's at least borderline by current standards.