Not sure about this. She seems tall enough and has hips to speak of, but her face and skinniness says otherwise.
Posted under General
Not sure about this. She seems tall enough and has hips to speak of, but her face and skinniness says otherwise.
nothingelsematters said:
Removed the child tag, but not so sure about adding loli. Would tend towards "yes", though.
post #2916671
More towards yes...
Unbreakable said:
Her hips would appear slimmer were she not in a crouch.
Unbreakable said:
Her hips are kinda poorly drawn, like there are not folded despite her obviously sitting down. I would not base the tag on them and count this as loli.
post #860832
Having changed the rating to Q this should be loli right?
ion288 said:
Her hips are kinda poorly drawn, like there are not folded despite her obviously sitting down. I would not base the tag on them and count this as loli.
post #860832
Having changed the rating to Q this should be loli right?
Yeah that looks very loli to me.
ion288 said:
post #860832
Having changed the rating to Q this should be loli right?
Please check the tag history too if you encounter a disputable image. This post changed rating and loli/not-loli several times, which indicates prior uncertainty. Searching the forum shows that it has been discussed before.
Actually, this post is an example for non-loli on the loli wiki.
kittey said:
Please check the tag history too if you encounter a disputable image. This post changed rating and loli/not-loli several times, which indicates prior uncertainty. Searching the forum shows that it has been discussed before.
Actually, this post is an example for non-loli on the loli wiki.
I did miss that. Would it be OK to reopen the topic? Many of those child posts are rated Q now and post #1649352 in particular seems sexually suggestive. Also post #8591 should not be taged loli by this standard.
kittey said:
Please check the tag history too if you encounter a disputable image. This post changed rating and loli/not-loli several times, which indicates prior uncertainty. Searching the forum shows that it has been discussed before.
Actually, this post is an example for non-loli on the loli wiki.
The post doesn't look very safe to me. It's not very "innocent" nudity. And it seems two admins opted to add the loli tag to that post in the past, from what I read in the forums, so it's not like the wiki is word of god.
post #2917609
More a rating check, but the loli tag is connected to it.
紫希貴 said:
Too curvy; not loli, IMO.
Chiera said:
post #2917609
More a rating check, but the loli tag is connected to it.
Questionable and loli, IMO.
Not loli.
post #1674443
Given the convenient censoring is it really safe and should it be loli?
ion288 said:
post #1674443
Given the convenient censoring is it really safe and should it be loli?
While I’m against watering down the ratings, such chibis/super_deformed characters with non-sexual nudity — especially with Barbie-doll anatomy — for cuteness/comedic effect are usually rated safe.
Loli or not is hard to determine with chibi bodies because the anatomy makes little sense anyway and they’re always more pudgy.
This one’s a tough call, but I’m leaning towards non-loli safe here.
I agree with kittey. That's censoring made to remove any kind of sexualization from the picture. I would go with safe too.
Probably not but eh, can't hurt to make sure.