Rule 34 rule
-
Edit: WE DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.
-
Edit: WE DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.
|>11 Maggie Simpson
This has to be bots, please. Someone has to be just fucking around. This can't be real.
-
Edit: WE DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.
Haha what kind of degenerate do you have to be to find any of these characters hot enou-
Amy Wong
We shouldn't judge others so harshly...
-
Edit: WE DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.
Its probably because anyone into anime is using a booru, like a normal person.
-
Edit: WE DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.
The fraction of teenage/underage girls on that list is too damn high (hell, Louise is 9)
-
Its probably because anyone into anime is using a booru, like a normal person.
Is booru a site or an app
-
Edit: WE DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.
Something about all these characters that I can't get behind, art style? personalities? I'm really not sure they all seem unappealing
-
Is booru a site or an app
Its an image board style, like a Chan (4chan, 8chan etc).
Safebooru, danbooru and gelbooru are some of the booru's I know.
-
Its an image board style, like a Chan (4chan, 8chan etc).
Safebooru, danbooru and gelbooru are some of the booru's I know.
explain in normielang
-
Edit: WE DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.
princess bean is also like 16 i think like a 4th is ilegal
-
Edit: WE DON'T TALK ABOUT NUMBER 11.
Honest question since i'm not a guy: When you guys are masturbating to Lisa Simpson do you think.you are fucking her in 3D or 2D? Are you a simpson character or is she a yellow little girl? Just trying to.understand your minds
Regardless, this is very fucked up, but I'm curious anyway
-
|>11 Maggie Simpson
This has to be bots, please. Someone has to be just fucking around. This can't be real.
Isn't there an episode where Maggie is grown up? Or am I thinking of Lisa?
I choose to believe it's the adult version
-
princess bean is also like 16 i think like a 4th is ilegal
Well no she doesn't exist, she doesn't have an age and so it's not illegal. These are fictional characters
-
The fraction of teenage/underage girls on that list is too damn high (hell, Louise is 9)
Controversial opinion: If killing npcs in video games is fine and shouldn't land you in prison for murder, because they are fictional and not real people, then porn of "underage" fictional characters is also fine and shouldn't be illegal.
Finding something disgusting is not a proper reason to make something illegal. The only relevant aspect is whether it causes harm to others or not.
- Csam harms children -> should be illegal and punished
- fictional drawings don't harm anyone bevause no actual people involved -> should be legal
-
Honest question since i'm not a guy: When you guys are masturbating to Lisa Simpson do you think.you are fucking her in 3D or 2D? Are you a simpson character or is she a yellow little girl? Just trying to.understand your minds
Regardless, this is very fucked up, but I'm curious anyway
Okay, I can't speak for this extremely fucked up example, but in general it's very simple:
- see shape which sufficiently resembles (partially) naked woman, maybe in suggestive pose
- neuron activation
- you are now horny
There is no need to imagine any fucking, seeing the image is enough to get you into the mood, looking at it long enough (or at different images for long enough) will get you most of the way there, and the hand can take care of the rest
-
Controversial opinion: If killing npcs in video games is fine and shouldn't land you in prison for murder, because they are fictional and not real people, then porn of "underage" fictional characters is also fine and shouldn't be illegal.
Finding something disgusting is not a proper reason to make something illegal. The only relevant aspect is whether it causes harm to others or not.
- Csam harms children -> should be illegal and punished
- fictional drawings don't harm anyone bevause no actual people involved -> should be legal
Legality and morality don't necessarily align. I would find it very immoral, but as far as I know, not illegal, to get off to drawings of children. Additionally, what's the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a "fictional character" that looks like said child? I think getting off to children is wrong, regardless of criminality. If that's something someone desires, they should seek help, not indulge in fantasy.
-
Legality and morality don't necessarily align. I would find it very immoral, but as far as I know, not illegal, to get off to drawings of children. Additionally, what's the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a "fictional character" that looks like said child? I think getting off to children is wrong, regardless of criminality. If that's something someone desires, they should seek help, not indulge in fantasy.
to get off to drawings of children
They are not drawings of children, they are drawings of fictional characters that look like children. That is an important distinction here I think. Obviously getting off to a drawing of a real child is wrong.
what's the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a "fictional character" that looks like said child?
That's my whole point, it makes all the difference. One is an actual human person that feels emotions and is harmed by the creation and spread of csam, while the other literally doesn't exist.
That's why I think it is not actually immoral. (I believe morality and legality should align anyways) Then again that's why we watch fictional shows in the first place
I think your disgust might come from anthropomorphising the fictional character and feeling empathy towards it?
(Of course you are entitled to your feelings) -
to get off to drawings of children
They are not drawings of children, they are drawings of fictional characters that look like children. That is an important distinction here I think. Obviously getting off to a drawing of a real child is wrong.
what's the difference between a photo of a child and a realistic drawing of a "fictional character" that looks like said child?
That's my whole point, it makes all the difference. One is an actual human person that feels emotions and is harmed by the creation and spread of csam, while the other literally doesn't exist.
That's why I think it is not actually immoral. (I believe morality and legality should align anyways) Then again that's why we watch fictional shows in the first place
I think your disgust might come from anthropomorphising the fictional character and feeling empathy towards it?
(Of course you are entitled to your feelings)I have always felt the "actually she's 1000 years old and just looks like a child" argument is both ridiculous and disingenuous. They're interested because she looks like a child, not because of her character supposed age. Again, but rephrased, what's the difference if someone makes a character that looks like a real child but is fictional and much older in their characterization? At what point is it morally acceptable? Do you need to use an ambiguous art style? Do you need to include inhuman character traits? I simply cannot take the argument seriously, because clearly the character looking like a child is important. What difference does the story you tell yourself about their age make? Why not just pretend real CSAM is just young looking aliens that are a million years old? If it looks like a child, I believe it's unequivocally immoral, and there is no line you can draw that would convince me that a childlike drawing that falls on the "OK" side of the line isn't immoral.
-
The fraction of teenage/underage girls on that list is too damn high (hell, Louise is 9)
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I agree but the availability of csam on the internet (real or simulated) reduces the instances of real-world abuse so... take that as you will I guess
Edit: I learned that in college about 7 years ago, but I researched it again and apparently the opposite is true, according to more recent evidence.
-
I agree but the availability of csam on the internet (real or simulated) reduces the instances of real-world abuse so... take that as you will I guessEdit: I learned that in college about 7 years ago, but I researched it again and apparently the opposite is true, according to more recent evidence.
Does it? I used to see this argument a lot on Reddit back in the early days when there were a lot more pedos on there and I don't really buy it. Are there any actual studies on this? I feel like there have got to be better ways at managing it than that at least from a clinical standpoint
