Quote - Hehehe, Thorne, people keep saying that, but I was 31 when that pic was taken :o)

In that case, given an image that looks exactly like that, one would have to say that the character looks 31 - because that's what a 31-year old woman looks like. This subjective judging is flawed because it makes no allowance for the wide range of human physiology, and furthermore, is strongly ethnocentric (I could phrase that more strongly).

Where "looks like under 18" has to be called for is in cases where a real person might be committing an offence. If a person who looks underage tries to buy alcohol, then the cashier does have to make a check because this is a real person who has a real age.

In the case of a digital image or even a drawing, there is no real age. So it is really far less important. There are three possible categories:

1. Figures that have to be under 18 (babies, small children).
2. Figures that have to be older than 18 (wrinkled faces).
3. Figures that, given the range in human aging and type, might or might not be under 18.

Now, I do not see why you have to judge all images in category 3 to be 1 and not 2. If an image could be over 18, could in fact be 31, then leave it. There is no real person committing a crime.