It's a page describing what is essentially a very violent form of DIY fetish porn. I have heard that the term is sometimes used fairly broadly to encompass catfight videos and the like, but apparently the true definition literally just refers to videos of female characters dying horribly framed in a sexualised fashion, and that is what the article describes. Why is this still on the wiki?
Will PROBABLY pass, but the ambiguous ages in the pic and the reference to shotacon means it gets a report and closer look. Seems okay in regard to having a plot, needs to be checked for pedo-pandering.
Protagonists are high schoolers and drawn "chibi" style. This one depends on how graphic the sex is and what the intended audience is (is it adults, or older teens? If it's adults it probably needs to be removed. If it's aimed at older teen fangirls in Japan, it can probably stay.)
First of all, haven't actually read it, so I don't know how explicit it is. Second, it's BizarroFiction. But I thought that a work which had babies used for anal sex might (and it's said to be common in the setting) might need a check just to be sure? I apologize in advance for any unnecessary work, sanity damage or liver damage the evaluation may cause.
"hypnotism fetish comic; latest version is sort-of Bleached Underpants and stops short of showing explicit nudity and sex, however it's still hosted on the same site as the previous ones as well as the author's gallery of assorted explicit art along the same theme" by Adannor http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13349331300A11026600&page=475#11861 - Septimus
I've read the series in question, and while it has other tropes, in the main it is very much pure sex. There ''is'' a plot, but it's an ExcusePlot at best. It's great porn, but it's still porn. Hardcore sex happens from the beginning to the end, nearly on every page, and the chapters are set up in such a way as to allow sex to happen.
This is sort of a complicated problem: While this is definitely a trope worth considering as a whole, and many of the potentially problematic works here do not have pages, there are entries here that feel like a dodge around our policies on works depicting paedophilic and ephebophilic content. Most of these are "edgy," intentionally discomfiting art films or fictional documents of situations not uncommon in the past, and they probably do have legitimate artistic merit for the most part, but that doesn't mean there isn't much running afoul of our policies, and I would feel... uncomfortable ignoring this simply because I don't know what I'd do about it myself, even if I'd feel equally uncomfortable with a total purge.