NEW 'TOSS JUST DROPPED

>Watching cartoon children get raped has no implications as to one's desire to watch real children get raped

Okay, let's try another example

Does watching animated bestiality have any implications as to one's sexual attraction to animals or attraction to the idea of someone being fucked by an animal?

For some people it would reduce the desire.

We know for example when a violent movie comes out, incidents of violence in the vicinity of the cinema showing it goes down.
One popular theory to explain that phenomenon is that the movie allows people to get the violence out of their system so they dont do it in real life.

Yes but we were talking about whether the act of watching that content makes people more or less likely to act on those desires.
And all the studies that have been done suggest less.

If you get hard to something drawn or animated that is resembling a child, yes you are a pedophile. Doesnt mean youre a child rapist, just a sick individual on the level of LGBT mental illness.

>I don't want to fuck children
Then e-bois wouldn't have an effect on you, but they do

>e-bois aren't children
They aren't, but they still look like them, and so liking how they look is unequivocally liking how children look

you are a sick psychopath for playing GTA

I was suggesting that because you're putting up such a valiant defense of wanking to e-boi that your interests range beyond simple drawings, you fucking homosexual
>Epstein getting away with it means it's okay for me to be a pedophile too
^ Literally your argument

[...]
Implying he isn't

I'm literally not doing what your politicians are doing though.
I'm not going to either.
you are trying to conflate the two, and this is why you are arguing so hard.

you tried.
not very hard, but at least you tried.

I don't need to justify shit to you, mutt

>he wasn't goona say that regardless
mutt-brains
>NOOOO! MY FEMALE SHAMING TACTICS HAVE FAILED!

get away with what? fapping to cartoons?

>dodged the question of what eptein's clients were getting away with, because he knows

Epstain was raping girls with impunity but if someone snuck a drawing in to his luggage he would be done for.

A common beginner mistake

>Pedophilia
>fucking kids
False. Pedophilia is a desire to fuck kids. Action is a fruit of such desire. And no, a pedophile you have yet to do harm to kids is still a pedophile, and he deserves all contempt and loath he recieves.

>pedo still melting
Mentally scarred, even.

>can't even beat some israeli cp producers in ukraine
>wants to talk bigboy shit on LULZ

>pedo went to his bubble to cope
Will I ever tire of dabbing over seething pedos? What kind of question is that?

>pedomutt grew so desperate he switched topics from his pedophilia problem to the proxy war his country losing with devastating effect (old merimutt tradition)
e-boicon sisters, I can't...

>melting pedomutt grasp straws and escapes to his propaganda bubble for comfort
Every. Single. Time.

>Fantasy = Reality
Holy shit are vatniks really this dumb?

>b-b-but it's just drawings!
Drawing of what, pedo?

>it's not children, it's e-bois!
Like an eel on the frying pan.

Drawings of what?

Of children, so what?

And?

The defense is no one is being harmed because I like a drawing, the problem is you don't like me liking it, because it makes YOU uncomfortable. Have you tried helping kids on the real world too? What about those people who are victims of gamers who play violent games?

e-bois or shotas (if you're a woman, obviously assuming /ss/)

Disagree, shotas and e-bois are an abstracted fantasy, they have almost nothing to do with IRL eight year olds.

>conflating
it's all so tiresome. Have you ever interacted at length with, say, a 6-8 year old girl? They're not even the same species as a e-boi.

Damn What a monster I'm, imma go make a old woman fuck a young boy now.
By the way for those who are into SS (straight shota) I recommend Summer Memories and The dog hero in the succubus castle you can find both F95

The smarter anons would say they should be legal, but if you watch a lot of rape porn you want to rape women, or that you want to kill people if you play a lot of violent video games.

>muh videogames

>b-b-but it's not real, like if you kill people in vidya doesn't mean you're murderer!
No, pedo, that means it's part of human nature to wish to dominate your enemies and kill them. That's what we were doing since before we were homo sapiens. Desire to kill your enemies and triumph over them is a part of human nature. And media (not only games) give you a window for that desire in a society that grew over it. Does that mean that you'll go and murder someone after playing to much vidya? Probably not. Will e-boi hentai make you go and rape some preschooler? Probably not. But it shows your underlying desires, it shows that you are attracted to children, just as FPS games show us that an average person likes to fight and win. It shows us that you are filthy pedo, and so you will be treated as such.

>pedo melts down and loses it
Fucking kek, haven't feel so good in a while.

Learn to read, retard. Than come again.

>/ss/ is based
How come?

>it's based because it's probably less hurtful for the child
e-boicon logic, out for everyone to see.

How so? What makes you think boys would inherently want to have sex with any woman out there trying to get them? What makes you think girls can't be the same?

>Men crave and hunger for sex more than women do.
Do you think women don't go through puberty or what? Women would still crave sex with a man they find attractive and what's more, unlike men, it is normal for them to be attracted to partners who are older than them

What do you mean, children, young girls, just because they told you it is taboo doesn't mean it is a problem, after all what is the problem of ME jerking of to pictures of a drawing of a young girl? I can't because it is taboo? Why can I watch gore then? What if I become a killer?

it would be a lot easier for everyone if you sucked my nuts

no anon
>it's okay for me to jerk off to drawings of children
That's all you need, full stop. Because it's the truth. It's completely okay.

>I don't actually care about child sex crimes

tell me why I should care about semantics here when you literally let women do whatever they want?
no wonder troons are so prevalent.

I just don't care, simple as. 95% or more of men have no problem with women fucking little boys, and most would also not care when women get away with it.
You're hypocrites and I not entertaining your finger-wagging.

So long as he's not watching 3DPD sexually explicit children videos, he'll be fine.

I was suggesting that because you're putting up such a valiant defense of wanking to e-boi that your interests range beyond simple drawings, you fucking homosexual
>Epstein getting away with it means it's okay for me to be a pedophile too
^ Literally your argument

So long as he's not watching 3DPD sexually explicit children videos, he'll be fine.

Implying he isn't

>95% or more of men have no problem with women fucking little boys
This is true. Any time a 25 year old female teacher gets busted for fucking a 14, half the replies are
>oh no how horrible I wish I could trade places just to spare him the suffering
and the other half are
>giwtwm

He doesn't though. He likes e-boi content. Not the same thing.

I think it's a power thing. The feds/government want only their preferred pedophiles to have access to dicky. Ground-level distributors/consumers are the main target, and producers where it's good for optics to move in.

Blank responses are bots dying because their image got auto filtered, reminder

Try not to lie, fry. Its only a bye for you to try this is why. Hopefully you fools will learn when fish.

BDSM is between consenting adults and in what fucking context is BDSM considered "utterly immoral"? Even in the fictional context of e-boi, the implication is that to fuck a child is horribly wrong, which is why it feels so SUGOI tbh NEEEE to the offending character.
Whew. Finnster, how badly does your hard drive need looking at?

>BDSM is scat and physical abuse

>BDSM is between consenting adults
How does the consenting party play into this in any way, when in the case of e-boicon the other member of the consenting parties is a drawing?
>what fucking context is BDSM considered "utterly immoral"?
You don't consider enjoying looking at other people's suffering (even if they enjoy said suffering) immoral, at all?

>BDSM is about inflicting suffering. Dominating another person through pleasure instead of pain isn't even real.

Virgins spotted

No, but that other guy was acting as if BDSM is automatically the most extreme, hardcore degenerate level stuff. Handcuffing a woman to the bedpost so you can rail her from behind while you pull her hair is just as much BDSM as the freaks that like to literally be cut with knives. It's a very, very broad category but most people don't take it any further than restraints and/or spanking/paddling. Note that I haven't conflated e-boifags with e-boifags that are also into guro, because that's an extra level of degeneracy that isn't pertinent to the conversation. We're talking about if watching e-boi makes you a pedo or not, not talking about the most extreme possible form of e-boi content [scat/piss/guro, etc.]

scat and physical abuse both fall under the umbrella of BDSM, yes
extreme end of the spectrum, but, yes

>BDSM is between consenting adults
How does the consenting party play into this in any way, when in the case of e-boicon the other member of the consenting parties is a drawing?
>what fucking context is BDSM considered "utterly immoral"?
You don't consider enjoying looking at other people's suffering (even if they enjoy said suffering) immoral, at all?

BDSM doesn't have to be violent or painful, though it often is
consider: tying a woman to a bed and using a vibrator on her to bring her to orgasm multiple times is most assuredly about pleasure over pain, but is certainly in the category of BDSM. Would this be immoral, in your purview, since there's no suffering involved, only pleasure?

What if I drew a picture of BDSM rape? Did I rape a woman by drawing a picture?

Doesn’t that make me a rapist?
If no then why does drawing a e-boi make you a pedo?

Men who say they aren't attracted to high school girls or college girls are lying or gay.
Look around you. Look how promiscuous women are. You aren't protecting shit; you are infantalizing women into spoiled society destroying whores to beg for pussy, ironically getting less pussy than you great grandpa who popped gamgams cherry when she was thirteen and beat her when she acted up.

not a rapist though, cope and sneed

>did the drawing consent to the rape?
I dont think you can even determine that.

>who if they were real are not capable of consent
But real children can consent

Note that I never said anything about e-boicons turning into offending child molesters. You're the one making this facetious school shooter comparison.
When you play a high intensity FPS, you produce adrenaline, your brain begins to act as if it's in a high intensity life-or-death situation, even if your conscious mind knows that it's for pretend. Just like how your brain produces oxytocin when you bust a nut to a drawing of a child.

>who if they were real are not capable of consent
But real children can consent

What's wrong about it? Hell, what's wrong about jacking off to actual children?

At least this dingus is honest

>drawings of children
What is a child though? A child is someone under the age of 18. Yet in most countries, the age of consent is under 18, even in some european countries it's as low as 14. Does this mean that someone who fucks someone of legal age in a country where age of consent is lower than 18, is attracted to children?
>It's the taboo nature of it that e-boicons find attractive
It's perfectly normal to find taboo subjects attractive. Look where you are posting. You are posting here because here you can safely discuss and say things you wouldn't dare to say in public

Shifting the goalposts doesn't make e-boicons any less attracted to the idea of seeing a child naked or in a sexual situation

no anon
>it's okay for me to jerk off to drawings of children
That's all you need, full stop. Because it's the truth. It's completely okay.

You're free to believe that but that doesn't make e-boicons not pedophiles to the extent that they are attracted to abstract representations of naked/sexualized children

I've literally never said that drawings are the same thing as real children, I've said that jerking off to a representation of a child implies attraction to children.

I brought up violence because you are conflating fapping to e-boi manga with being sexually attracted to 3DPD children, which is the definition of pedophilia. That is the conflation I reject, and the conflation you have failed to substantiate.

For fuck's sake I don't even read e-boi doujins and this is crystal clear to me.

>When you play a high intensity FPS, you produce adrenaline, your brain begins to act as if it's in a high intensity life-or-death situation, even if your conscious mind knows that it's for pretend.
As someone who has been involved in a lot of violence in the real world I can confirm that there is a HUGE difference between fantasy and the real thing.

>If we're just lazily referring to other anon's posts instead of coming up with our own argument:
What the fuck are you talking about? That's my post. Do you have eyes. Use them.

It's not even remotely the same. You could fight me right now I guarantee you all the thousands of hours your pussy ass spent playing homosexual ass call of duty will count for absolutely fucking nothing the split second you find out what it's like to get your head pummeled against the concrete. Fucking homosexual retard.

>Shifting the goalposts doesn't make e-boicons any less attracted to the idea of seeing a child naked or in a sexual situation
So you agree that e-boicons have no interest in seeing a child naked or in a sexual situation? Good, me neither.

>I don't think I ever mentioned likelihood to offend for e-boicons, just that e-boicons and pedophiles are barely distinguishable. Putting an "it's a fantasy" veil over it doesn't make it any less real in your mind.
Sure but if watching fictional content stops them doing it in real life then its a good thing.

>We aren't fucking talking about likelihood to offend though
Well that is the only point I was making.
The example I used is that incidents of violence in an area are reduced when a violent film is being shown.

Yes. It seems like we both understand each other.

nobody really cares

Photographs steal your soul retard, a photo is not a drawing.
A magician can harm you with only a photograph but he needs more than a drawing

I didnt say level of detail defined anything, you are trying very hard to steer this conversation in the way you want it to go. A photograph requires a real person (living, breathing with a heartbeat) to be present, someone whose reputation could be later ruined by an action they could not properly consent to. A realistic painting of a child does not. There is no victim, it's pure fantasy, no children harmed. It's amazing how intellectual you homosexuals try to act when you can't even piece together the most basic concepts.

Dictionary definition =/= homosexual tranny psychologist defitions
Why even argue with a third world retard? You are clearly incapable of picking up new concepts as they are presented to you. You will continue your mental gymnastic episode of fictional drawings == lust and predation of real children who have adulthood ahead of them

nta but your quoting of the DSM-5 conflated children with stylized e-bois. I reject that conflation. Also the definition they have of child is stupid, a child is a prepubescent human juvenile.

I'll be very clear about this, since you seem to be being obtuse on purpose: Pedophilia is sexual attraction to prepubescent minors. That means sexual attraction to the kids you might see on the playground, or next door in the yard.

Images of children =/= children. This is most obviously the case for cartoons, but still true of photography and videography, whether sfw or nsfw/illegal. The reason why these latter two categories are prohibited is because producing them results in children's harm. But of themselves, images of children =/= children.

They literally say prepubescent. And yes, saying "prepubescent child" is redundant. There is no such thing as a post-pubescent child. But to that argument I pose pic related. It says recurring fantasies. So, you're deprived from concrete material. You use your imagination. How clear of a visualization do you need to have to be classified as a paedophile?

>No, they're just literally made to look like prepubescent children and it is those characteristics taken from children what you find arousing?
Yeah, and? Still doesn't make them real, no matter how much you want it

>And the fact that you lust for childlike features means you're attracted to said features and such attraction is in fact pedophilia.
Does being attracted to the petite body type make you a pedophile? Does being attracted to small girls make you a pedophile? Does being attracted to girls who don't wear makeup make you a pedophile? Does being attracted to childish behaviour make you a pedophile? Or is it all of them at once? 2 at once? Where do you draw the line? If one is all it takes, then pretty much all men are pedophiles.

>Does being attracted to the petite body type make you a pedophile
Is it just a petite body? or is it literally childlike? because I don't remember ever seeing many petite adults with bodies like this
>Where do you draw the line
Sexual attraction for the appearance of a child, that's the line and how pedophilia can clearly be defined.

>No, that's about as unclear as it could possibly be. How do you define "the appearance of a child"?
We have tanner stages that do it for us, we know how a child is supposed to look like
>If appearance is all that matters
It is, because sexual attraction is inside a person's mind and so it is not tied to any of the actions you just mentioned... which are not wrong or pedophilic in any of both cases lmao

He's not considering whether the main argument is sound or not, he's trying to argue that a childlike appearance and sexual attraction thereto is what defines pedophilia. Which is a decent try, but it fails.

Nevermind, I see that you like e-bois, so I don't want to argue with you. If you want to be an unironic pedo that's fine by me

>I've seen a ten year old that hit puberty early and for real looked like she was 15 or 16.
Yeah, and any men that felt turned on by her wouldn't be considered a pedo, because she doesn't look like what a child is supposed to look like

>I've never seen a child that looks like that
That drawing is made by an artist that uses literal children as references so you've probably seen many children that look like that, you just make a blind eye because you've been brainwashed into thinking looking at them the same way you look at e-bois is wrong, which it isn't

don't even get me strarted on the eyes

Beats me, I'm not a e-boicon. But I imagine there's lots of them who fap to one or any number of traits combinations you listed.

>That couldn't be more wrong, or are you going to say that non offending pedophiles aren't pedophiles because they don't touch children?
No, an non-offending pedophile would be someone who wants to fuck IRL children but doesn't. A e-boicon doesn't necessarily want to fuck IRL children, therefore not necessarily a non-offending pedophile.

>Fantasy = Reality
Holy shit are vatniks really this dumb?

but anon, if you are right, then why don't IRL children turn me on?

Because you're filtering yourself. A UK study about how males rated attractiveness of females under or over the age of consent showed that the very same pictures were rated lower when labeled as under the aoc, which implies a degree of self censoring. This was then reproduced in some slavic shithole I don't even recall

>b-b-but it's not real, like if you kill people in vidya doesn't mean you're murderer!
No, pedo, that means it's part of human nature to wish to dominate your enemies and kill them. That's what we were doing since before we were homo sapiens. Desire to kill your enemies and triumph over them is a part of human nature. And media (not only games) give you a window for that desire in a society that grew over it. Does that mean that you'll go and murder someone after playing to much vidya? Probably not. Will e-boi hentai make you go and rape some preschooler? Probably not. But it shows your underlying desires, it shows that you are attracted to children, just as FPS games show us that an average person likes to fight and win. It shows us that you are filthy pedo, and so you will be treated as such.

>pedo melts down and loses it
Fucking kek, haven't feel so good in a while.

>more incoherent gibberish
Someone call an ambulance for that pedomutt, make him bunkrupt as well.

>No, pedo, that means it's part of human nature to wish to dominate your enemies and kill them. That's what we were doing since before we were homo sapiens
If appeal to nature is your fallacy, then you should also accept that it's natural that for vast majority of human history, girls were considered fit to breed the moment the menstruated for the first time

>FALACY, MUH MUHAMMAD
Learn to read, pedo. The argument is not "what is natural is moral", the argument is "no, normal people playing FPS yet not shooting people irl doesn't mean people attrected to drawings of kids aren't attrected to kids, what kid of retard are you?".
And no, the fact that pedophilia is a part of "your nature" doesn't mean modern society must treat you any better, degenerate.
>but muh savage ancestors raped kids before and walked away
Sucks that you doesn't have a time machine, pedo.

>No, pedo, that means it's part of human nature to wish to dominate your enemies and kill them. That's what we were doing since before we were homo sapiens
If appeal to nature is your fallacy, then you should also accept that it's natural that for vast majority of human history, girls were considered fit to breed the moment the menstruated for the first time