now that you mention it i can see its indeed plastic sorry about that but i looked at the terms of use and found this rule that i THINK is broken by this picture(plastic or not) "Do not upload any material depicting real life child pornography or bestiality. This includes photos of nude children, and photomanipulations that resemble real life child pornography or bestiality."
shure i should back up my claims but at the time i realy tought it was a real person in the picture and i was quite conviced too seeing as it so closly resembles the real thing
if your angry at me for posting such posts then my apolegies and you have the right to do so but please understand that i did not see any harm in my coments and at the moment of making those coments i tought i was exposing illegal child pronografy.
but i do still stand by the fact that i personaly think this is no loli its just a pictureof a plastic "statue" resembleing a child
and as far as i know loli is manga of litle girls and i dont see any manga in this picture, do you?
and just to back up my claims here ios a quote form wiki "Lolicon (ロリコン, rorikon?), in the Western world, is a genre of manga-style sexual artwork involving childlike female characters"
You idiot. It says "manga-style sexual artwork." Know what that means? It means anime is covered, and any models- plastic, PVC, etc.- that are made in that same style. That is obviously a figure done in the style of manga/anime, or could be a character from a manga/anime. Since she's nude, and in a legs-open position, it can be said that it's sexual. Lastly, since it's probably hand-painted, I would consider it artwork, because I, myself would have screwed it up.
There: all three of your criteria met for loli, given the defintion YOU yourself provided. Go suck a cock.
