The New Rating:s and Loli

Posted under Tags

With the recent rating changes, the previous unwritten but oft-spoken guidelines of loli being not allowed in rating:safe have become a bit muddled. Rating:sensitive is still being treated as rating:safe in this one regard, causing the occasional tag edit fight. Without an official stance, not much can be done, however.

I believe that loli should be expanded "downward" now that rating:s is rating:sensitive and considered a part of is:nsfw. Previously the statement was to remove loli from anything rating:safe (or at least upgrade it to rating:q), which is creating issues where images like post #3772078 should be tagged rating:s under the current rules but is very clearly loli. The recent creation of female child has also caused some oddities in that there is now a ton of things like:
Post count for female_child rating:s solo pantyshot: 59
Some users, due to the now antiquated rule about rating:s + loli, remove loli from posts like that.

But, as stated, without a specific stance from admins, this is all just conjecture.

I think the rules are fine as they are, if something is rating:sensitive but "lewd" enough to be considered as loli (the tag, not the look) it should just be upgraded to rating:q since loli is (should) be stricter when it comes to ratings.

I agree with Unbreakable. I think expanding the rating limit for loli would just result in more things being tagged when they shouldn't be. I can spot several things in the provided search that shouldn't be tagged loli, but if you tell people "Sensitive is loli now" someone would blanket tag all those posts with loli because taggers don't understand nuance. If something really does qualify for loli, it should just be rated more harshly.

I feel that, especially recently, that ends up throwing us into a feedback loop of "this is loli, so it needs to be rating:q" being met with "this isn't nsfw enough to be rated Q, so I'm changing it to S", which results in girls wearing a randerosu and half a microbikini being tagged female child instead of loli. That's from personal experience.

I was working through ai:loli -loli and slowly working my way down the confidence ranges. I had said I'd stop when someone said something and that was around 85%, though some of my edits were already being removed in the 97% range.

In that project, I've noticed there's either a weird hesitancy to tagging things loli lately. Either that or, as we joke on the discord, we've become desensitized to it the same way rating:safe was becoming a problem.

blindVigil said:

A quick scan of your edits, and you're definitely too strict in your usage of loli at times. Fully clothed girls with minimal or even no overt sexualization definitely shouldn't be tagged as lolis, and there's a few petites in there.

This is exactly what I mean.
post #5367425 is loli while post #5367426 is counted as rating:sensitive + child despite having the same pose and nipple bumps?

I think we're too loose with our definition of loli, as I observed previously. Sexual enough to be NSFW but also "not NSFW enough" to be loli is a very strange grey area.

blindVigil said:

She's literally wearing a micro bikini in the parent post and the "nipple bumps" in the child posts aren't even enough to tag covered nipples.

Sensitive is SFW, so I'm not actually sure what you mean.

Straight from the howto:rate wiki:

Note also that if an image is loli or shota, it lowers the requirements for what is considered "sensitive" significantly.

Too many users are ignoring this clause and rating obviously loli posts as S; it's a pain in the ass because loli content is gradually encroaching upon rating:s for literally no reason. Additionally, someone searching loli is obviously looking for this kind of content, which they won't find because some users refuse to tag loli and rate Q on even these posts with spread legs, an open fly, visible underwear, covered_nipples and a shirt lifted to expose the stomach all at the same time.

I don't think the solution is to tag S posts as loli, but to be more harsh on what rating these posts should get. A woman in the same outfit would be S; while not completely family friendly it wouldn't be outright NSFW for them to be in a minor state of undress whilst striking a provocative pose. However, if we apply the same S vs G morals to a child in this sleazy scenario, it should be clear to anyone that it's definitely a "rating:q loli" post.

Note also that if an image is loli or shota, it lowers the requirements for what is considered "sensitive" significantly.

This clause was changed from "questionable" to "sensitive" recently. Is that not an implicit answer to whether loli is meant to be tagged on rating:s posts?

Additionally, not sure why people are under the impression that S is SFW. It's explicitly not present on Safebooru.

Nacha said:

I guess because of: Is:sfw search

That explains things a bit. I was always under the impression that the old rating:q exception for loli was to be 100% sure it wasn't on any SFW areas of the site, but now we're seeing two conflicting definitions of SFW in use simultaneously.

Loli can be used on rating:sensitive posts if they're lewd enough. I hesitate to go so far as to say it should be used on all rating:sensitive child posts. But it definitely should be used on bikinis and other highly suggestive things.

I don't want to restrict posts any more than I have to. But if people are starting to use child on sexualized content then I have to. Frankly I wish people had never made the female child tag to begin with. It's just a really bad look to use the word "child" on anything remotely lewd. And it gets even worse when you start categorizing pictures of children by age and gender and what they're wearing. That makes even the most innocent posts look suspect.

Ideally the child tag would be 100% safe. I'm talking safe enough to show your mother. This does leave a gap where something might not be suggestive enough for loli, but too suggestive for child. I have no solution for this other than to say: don't go around tagging child on everything and forcing my hand.

Don't read too much into the naming of is:sfw. It's just a shortcut for rating:g,s, as a counterpart to is:nsfw and a replacement for the old rating:safe search. It's not literally safe for work in the same way the old Safe rating wasn't safe for work. The Sensitive rating isn't considered safe for work, it's the grey area between safe and unsafe.

I feel the warning on not tagging child willy-nilly is going to fall on deaf ears. Of the 59 posts counted in the OP example, 56 of those were tagged child prior to even receiving female child in the first place. While the problem with folks tagging female child over loli is one of many serious issues, most if not nearly all of the issues that tag (and same with male child) has is strictly inherited from child, whether it be its usage on sexualized content that would better have been tagged with loli, its lack of tagging when it otherwise presents a logical inconsistency (during my tagging so far, I've run into multiple examples where you have rating:g/s parent and rating:q/e child, but while the latter is appropriately tagged loli, the former isn't tagged child at all), etc. You even have the issue where loli is only selectively tagged, even when the whole post set is just variations (i.e. parent:4889990, where two characters were clearly having sex, but only the ones where the girl was fully nude were tagged loli), as if either a) the uploader wanted to circumvent the restrictions of the loli tag; or b) the tagger wasn't thorough enough.

You could easily remove the "female" part of "female child" in this entire thread, and you have the real issue at hand. Taggers cannot be trusted to properly tag between child and loli/shota (or even flat chest and loli), because they will do anything they can to be able to search for sexualized depictions, even if it means just not adding any relevant tag in the first place. Child, in that sense, has always functionally served as the SFW equivalent of loli/shota, to the point of inheriting their lack of need for specific age and focus on appearance.

There's only one solution to this, and that's to just nuke child, and its associated tags. I had hope that the creation of female child/male child could be used as a means to more easily garden sexualized depictions, but if that doesn't appear to be the case, then we have no real alternative. A world where child is 100% rating:g is unlikely, and there would be no need to debate whether something is sufficiently sexualized if there's no choice in the matter to begin with.

May as well remember what users past talked about on this matter: topic #206, topic #2, topic #484, topic #844, topic #1012, topic #1372, topic #1419.


blindVigil said:

I changed it because that is the most nonsexual upskirt I've ever seen. If we're tagging that as loli, we might as well tag everything as loli.

Are you suggesting that posts with a blatantly focused view up a child's dress at their underwear aren't enough for loli?

1 2