Basically as title, I wanted to hear if posts such as below are acceptable, since as it stands, it doesn’t break any of Lemmygrads rules. Frankly, the post is very weird to me, and the comments are bizarre. People talking about how they want to “dominated” by a 14 year old is imo not okay, especially not when it’s on a post of a drawing of a child with clear undertones. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the post since I’m not an evangelion fan, but I thought it was noteworthy enough to bring up here.
So, I mainly wanted to chime in on the phrasing and my comment grew into something longer. I remember reading vague things in passing that loli is a little more complicated of a term than it seems at first glance. This is one article I could find that goes into it: https://medium.com/thisvthattv/so-what-makes-or-doesnt-make-a-character-a-loli-85761716b152
This article also only vaguely brushes on the fashion/artstyle aspect of it too, called lolita, which doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with sexualizing a person. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_fashion
The origin of the term, if the etymology analysis is correct, is certainly a big oof for connotation to say the least, but the branching off uses of it in practice are more complicated.
It’s probably simpler to just say that if people are openly pining after someone underage, that’s not something that should be allowed on here and not make it any deeper than that, or we start getting into the weeds of anime and its art style. 😓 Though it’s sounding like it’s some kind of fandom in-joke in this case, from what commiespammer said. Not that that makes the look of it any better on the surface. In terms of the image itself, sans context, I could have believed it was an adult character and the caption was about the character being a vampire or something… anime style is cartoony enough with age like that. In this sense, if there is any underlying problem in the image itself, all I can see is the caption because of some interpretations of it. The image itself without caption is just an anime face in portrait. That said, if someone were to make a rule that said “no loli posting,” based on the most extreme of what people seem to associate with the term, my mind would go to a place I’d rather it not go in terms of what I’d expect to be prohibited and viewed as the thing to stomp out, I’ll put it that way; one that is many degrees more overt than the image in question and impossible to interpret as anything innocent. This is why I’m doing a “well ackshully” on the terminology. To disallow something you have to first be clear on what exactly it is that is being disallowed. Is the problem how the image was discussed? The image itself? The image with caption? At what point does it cross over from average anime girl into being a problem. I’m sure you can agree it would be a bit absurd to just say images of anime girls can’t ever be posted. And “loli posting” seems far too vague to create a general rule out of, if this instance is the basis of it. “Don’t post images of characters that are canonically underage with captions or comments that imply sexual interest, even if as an ironic fan in-joke” may be more actionable, albeit wordy as hell.