Dynasty has flip-flopped a lot on the loli tags for Tae-chan to Jimiko-san, because evidence suggests that the "lolis" are 17-18 and just look young.
Fundamentally, "loli" refers to how a character is drawn rather than how old they are. I mean, you wouldn't call the nine year old (yes, we
are for real)
Zakuro-chan a "loli", would you?
No, because that'd be silly. You'd be a silly billy.
Curiously, this does point to a certain pointlessness in trying to moderate or legislate against ero-loli/shota on account of it being ero-loli/shota as opposed to being erotic to begin with. Attempting to enforce standards essentially becomes a glorified art review, where you get penalized for not drawing in a certain way (even if the way you draw, for example, results from a lack of art skill-- imagine being cursed to draw lolis because trying to draw anything else leads to eldritch results). On the flipside, nothing at all stops the conspicuous censorship of ages or the nominal age-up. But that never actually smooths everything for detractors, because everyone knows the cheekiness being employed, whether or not they can explain it. Weird enough, though, that also suggests that it
isn't about ages, but about how a character is drawn... except when it
is about ages, because someone drew a pin-up of an anime character that's characterized (in their source comic, that may or may not have been read by the artist) as 17 years old and looks 25.
You know what? Sense dies enough in the loli debate, to the point that I'm ready to follow Patrick's advice:
