In reference to this ask Applying real world moral and legal repercussions to a drawing is fucking cringe. Drawing Snuff doesn’t make you a murderer Drawing Vore doesn’t make you a Cannibal Drawing Furry doesn’t mean you fuck dogs Drawing a gun doesn’t make you a weapons manufacturer So drawing Loli doesn’t make you a pedophile Not to mention *loud stage whisper* If people are jerking off to drawings instead of something real, than there’s something about the unrealistic, fantasy element of it being a drawing that attracts them more than the real thing. Real CP is hardly difficult to find. Hell, anyone who’s been on our beloved Hellsite for more than 3-4 years knows all to well that you can just trip over that shit sometimes. So why do people insist on making and enjoying drawings, I wonder? 🤔 Could it be that the drawings have a more appealing quality, despite being entirely unrealistic, than actual children?
Fancops do not want to accept that 99% of the time, people who are attracted to characters that are portrayed as children or childlike are not attracted to real actual children.
It honestly makes me think of the scooby discourse.
Scooby Doo, and any furry character, is a drawing that has a collection of character traits attached to it. He’s not a real dog. He doesn’t smell, drool, have to go walkies, whatever.
Lolis are drawings that have a collection of character traits attached to them. They don’t whine, cry, need to be fed, have pores, whatever.
Most loli characters have absolutely nothing in common with real children.
Being attracted to a character doesn’t mean you’d be attracted to a real person who had any of the traits of the character.
Lolis don’t look like real children any more than furries look like real animals.
Being attracted to something in fiction doesn’t mean you are attracted to it in real life.
Discussion ¬