wait, this one had been tagged as loli... Did I miss something, or why would people tag this lolicon?

Because with flat-chest girls it's better safe than sorry....that and a fuckton of people have bitched & moaned about it to me.

so koishi closed her third eye instead of getting naked??!
....awwww

I accidently misread Bridge princess as Bondage princess (° _ °)

GreenDrag said:
I accidently misread Bridge princess as Bondage princess (° _ °)

I... I approve of this.

Kumoritama said:
I... I approve of this.

Motion carried.

...No seriously, that thing's removable?

touhoufannumbah249 said:
...No seriously, that thing's removable?

This comes in handy a lot of the time. She can leave it home, when she thinks it's going to get her in trouble, or she can rent it out, when she doesn't need it."

Mr_GT said:

Because with flat-chest girls it's better safe than sorry....that and a fuckton of people have bitched & moaned about it to me.

That's not how the loli and shota tags are supposed to be used. Use nude or completely nude as applicable, but regardless of whether or not those tags apply, use the child tag if there are no sexual activities. Even if genitals, buttocks, or nipples happen to be visible, unless they're given provocative emphasis in the image, it's just simple nudity. Nude is not lewd. The world does not need to conform to the standards of its most repressive conservatives.

Even in the USA, federal and most states' laws agree that simple nudity is not enough to turn an otherwise innocent image into pornography. Some parents and grandparents have had charges dropped or been acquitted at trial after being wrongly charged with CP based on ordinary photos of their babies/toddlers bathing or running around naked at swimming pools/beaches. Likewise, some well-known photographers such as Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, Sally Mann, Gary Gross, and Lewis Carroll (yes, the author of Alice in Wonderland) have published photographs of real children in the nude, without facing criminal charges for doing so. On the other hand, some "child modeling" website companies have been convicted of producing CP because the underage models were made to wear bikinis/lingerie/etc. and assume provocative poses, the judges rejecting the defense attorneys' arguments that having the models wear (barely) enough to cover up was enough to avoid breaking the law.