Posted under General
Guaro1238 said:
Im gonna say no on this one.
Jigsy said:
Yes very much so.
user_711026 said:
Doesnt really look like child anatomy, though possibly flaggable bad anatomy.
Rating check as well. "Tasteful" panty shots are Safe. This one isn't particularly revealing or suggestive, and it's not a focal point of the image anyway. I'm not sure why else this post would be tagged loli.
iridescent_slime said:
Rating check as well. "Tasteful" panty shots are Safe. This one isn't particularly revealing or suggestive, and it's not a focal point of the image anyway. I'm not sure why else this post would be tagged loli.
I don't see any reason for this to be anything else than safe, though I know this uploader often "overuse" rating:q and loli.
Don't think there's nearly enough of anything sexual here to be considered loli, or questionable for that matter
post #3813428 isn't tagged, but all of its siblings are
post #3812177 and post #3812183 have the reverse problem, they're tagged but none of their siblings are.
I don't think I would tag any of them as loli, but whatever people decide it should at least be consistent.
blindVigil said:
Don't think there's nearly enough of anything sexual here to be considered loli, or questionable for that matter
There is a bit of a cameltoe and it is clearly a child. Thus it is Q loli, at least according to current definitions.
blindVigil said:
post #3813428 isn't tagged, but all of its siblings are
post #3812177 and post #3812183 have the reverse problem, they're tagged but none of their siblings are.
I don't think I would tag any of them as loli, but whatever people decide it should at least be consistent.
I would agree on the first part being petite rather than loli, the second example looks to weird for me to rule on.
Do we have a stance on bad anatomy lolis?
(tag was added by another user)
I didn't hesitate to add loli to this one because I frankly can't see how it could be anything else; her head is proportionally large, her pelvis isn't particularly wide, and that elementary schoolers' backpack in the background isn't helping. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I didn't know that tagging "loli" makes the pic "premium exclusive" and now i blocked my sfw upload, can someone with a gold account please remove the tag?
Here is the pic.
>/posts/3828428
Doesn't appear to be loli despite being a bit suggestive.
Kikimaru said:
Doesn't look like pre-adolescent proportions to me. Not loli.
DarknetJin said:
Is the child supposed to be a boy or a girl? The post is tagged brother_and_sister, but if that's a boy he's showing some seriously deep cameltoe. Either way, this one is definitely loli/shota.
iridescent_slime said:
Is the child supposed to be a boy or a girl? The post is tagged brother_and_sister, but if that's a boy he's showing some seriously deep cameltoe. Either way, this one is definitely loli/shota.
This girl has to be uzumaki himawari, but I think the image is kinda mistagged. So it´s a loli.
The brother and sister tag is there, because the blonde haired girl could be the genderswaped version of Boruto.
Updated
The breast size and hips makes me think not loli.