what the heck am i looking at? Her ass! ignoring the elephant in the room with all my might

Right... I'm probably going to take flak for this, but I'm reverting the loli tag on the Satori images I uploaded. I wouldn't have cared as much up until I saw that this of all images got tagged with it.

umhyuk said:
forum #33910 -> loli tag readded

Still not seeing it. The words at hand were "sexually charged enough to warrant being questionable", and I don't view panties as being sexually charged. I put it as being questionable because it isn't a purely SFW image.

She doesn't really look that young here. Flat-chested, yes, but not like a child.

Right. I'm going to bed and removing the tag yet again (for the reasoning stated below). If a mod can shed some light on why this should be tagged loli, I'll gladly withdraw my complaints.

DschingisKhan said:
She doesn't really look that young here. Flat-chested, yes, but not like a child.

This. While I use loli as an umbrella term for neotonous girls, the ruling provided states that the loli tag applies to sexual images of children. Satori is not portrayed as a child in this image. Unless the loli tag is applied to every girl who is short and flatchested (Australiabooru, anyone?), then it shouldn't apply in this case.

This is not loli.

@bastille

damn you, you beat me to what i was going to say. Though I was gonna suggest that he was actualy on the rating board since most people that browse stuff that has porn on it (that arent doing it to specificaly be offended) tend to have the skill to apply personal judgement (as well as being allowed to use it) instead of some predefined regulations)

>.> <.<

why yes I am pissed off at the current state of the australian classification board, however did you guess.