Jeix_fg said:
I think one picture is missing, there should be one where the girls get entranced so that the next one has a meaning.
Did I miss something or is there actually a missing pic?

LoneOval said:
Since this is the first page where we see the girls, I'll ask here - why doesn't this have the "loli" tag? I don't know (or want to know) anything about Digimon, but they all look MIGHTY underage.

Mindwipe said:
Loli isn't an underage tag. Loli is for females that look prepubescent, child-like. These girls look young, but developed. So they aren't lolis.

HypnoDragon said:
I thought it was for girls who were 13 and under.

Vanndril said:
Nope. We thought it was silly to tag things depending on a character's age, whether it be canon or else, because half the time characters don't look their "age" at all. For example, some characters who range in the ages over 500 years old have bodies of young children, where as many, many anime characters in middle/high school have the developed breasts of a MILF and look to be in their 20s or, in some cases, 30s. <.<

It's much easier and much more useful to just tag by their body types. If they're obviously prepubescent, then they get tagged loli/shota, regardless of age.

HypnoDragon said:
seems kinda prejudice

slipslideman said:
Firstly, that should be prejudiced, not prejudice. You're using a noun where an adjective would make more sense.

Secondly, these are drawn characters. You can draw a 2 year old, call it a 400 year old dragon maiden, and eventually someone will make porn of it. Are you telling me that wouldn't be toddler-con? Would someone who dislikes hentai of underage characters really be ok with looking at that? Really?

Obviously not. When dealing with drawn, fictional characters, the only logical approach is to say "This is obviously loli, this is obviously not". There will always be gray areas, and disagreements will pop up; but to say "we should judge based on in-universe age" is clearly absurd, as the previous example demonstrates.