I don't know the post number since I don't have Gold but the singular post found by https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=pixiv%3A115389794+-pussy
Is it really sexual enough to warrant the loli tag?
Posted under General
I don't know the post number since I don't have Gold but the singular post found by https://danbooru.donmai.us/posts?tags=pixiv%3A115389794+-pussy
Is it really sexual enough to warrant the loli tag?
Eugh... post #3998293. Being anime the blushing gives me the feeling it is meant to be titillating. and it's definitely children.
Also post #7107398
Updated
Dodo1 said:
Eugh... post #3998293. Being anime the blushing gives me the feeling it is meant to be titillating. and it's definitely children.
Also post #7107398
For post #3998293, a stronger argument would be the spread legs and buruma. Despite these elements, though, I'd consider this borderline at worst. Leaving it at S without child is probably fine.
I believe post #7107398 is also borderline but for a different reason; the characters are nude, but appear to be roughly in their early teens. I feel this one could go either way.
Blank_User said:
For post #3998293, a stronger argument would be the spread legs and buruma. Despite these elements, though, I'd consider this borderline at worst. Leaving it at S without child is probably fine.
I believe post #7107398 is also borderline but for a different reason; the characters are nude, but appear to be roughly in their early teens. I feel this one could go either way.
Basically my thoughts as well. The first doesn't really depict anything inherently sexual, and I'm leaning more towards no on the second one, though I wouldn't fight it if more people disagreed.
post #6986935
Is this an oppai loli?
Blank_User said:
post #6986935
Is this an oppai loli?
The tag's not very well defined, but I don't think those are "adult-sized" breasts. They look fairly reasonable for her proportions.
fortunachan said:
Almost all "dazzi" (from palworld) are considered "loli" when are actually not
Reasons, she/he is a type of alraune monster, usually are flat chested and of little and big size
How do you know they aren't loli posts? Did you check the source links? That's the only way you'd be able to tell since you neither have a Gold account nor are the uploader of any Dazzi posts. I see a few like post #7114803 that might warrant a second look, but a good number of them are unquestionably loli.
Do you see the clause about millennia-old vampires still being able to qualify for loli in the tag wiki? The same thing applies here. If the character looks like a sexualized young girl to someone who knows nothing about them, it counts.
Edit: Though looking at the wiki, the way it's worded suggests it's an exception to the rule, which is contradictory with how the tag is supposed to work. It should say it "still counts," not "does not count."
Updated
Blank_User said:
Do you see the clause about millennia-old vampires still being able to qualify for loli in the tag wiki? The same thing applies here. If the character looks like a sexualized young girl to someone who knows nothing about them, it counts.
Edit: Though looking at the wiki, the way it's worded suggests it's an exception to the rule, which is contradictory with how the tag is supposed to work. It should say it "still counts," not "does not count."
I always took it to mean "the trope does not count [as an excuse to not tag it as loli]", but I agree it could be reworded to be less ambiguous.
LightSolas said:
I always took it to mean "the trope does not count [as an excuse to not tag it as loli]", but I agree it could be reworded to be less ambiguous.
It looks like it was a fairly recent addition. I normally don't edit important wikis like this myself, but since we obviously don't want to be exempting "really 700 years old" characters from the loli tag, I changed the wording of that part to make it more clear.
post #7137708 for a good measure
teitoku_zeon said:
post #7137708 for a good measure
I'd say petite, not loli
Blank_User said:
I believe post #7107398 is also borderline but for a different reason; the characters are nude, but appear to be roughly in their early teens. I feel this one could go either way.
Having BEEN a 12 year old girl I disagree, that could definitely be 10 to 13 year olds minus the gargantuan anime head of course. (The wiki defines it as anything below 12). Same goes for some of the pics used to illustrate "adolescent" on the wiki. post #758970 post #1968484 as opposed to something like post #1958276 that is is so cartoony it could honestly be anything.
On a side note "realistic" loli pics creep me the hell out for obvious reasons.
Dodo1 said:
Having BEEN a 12 year old girl I disagree, that could definitely be 10 to 13 year olds minus the gargantuan anime head of course. (The wiki defines it as anything below 12). Same goes for some of the pics used to illustrate "adolescent" on the wiki. post #758970 post #1968484 as opposed to something like post #1958276 that is is so cartoony it could honestly be anything.
On a side note "realistic" loli pics creep me the hell out for obvious reasons.
Plus minus a single year isn't what loli vs not loli is about, in most circumstances it's entirely up to the "vibe" image gives off.
hdk5 said:
I would just tag this as child and remove the loli tag. You can argue that a bare stomach is fetish content catering especially to lolicons, but you can make a fetish out of anything and the mere presence of it doesn't imply that it's inherently sexual or suggestive (same for bare shoulders, for example). I'd bet the average outsider would just react to this image by saying that it's adorable. For the same reason, I would change the rating from sensitive to general.
hdk5 said:
This may have to remain tagged as "loli". The main thing here is again the stomach, but now the toddler-looking character is sleeping. What makes this more suspectible is the fact that the picture has more of a close-up feel (compared to post #7152280), while also being in a complete isolation with no background, no context, no anything. If it was a similar picture, but more zoomed-out, and the character was instead sleeping in her room/bed, I would pass it with the general rating and the child tag.