If there was a very realistic seeming simulator game where you could rape her while she cries, screams and struggles; would you play it?
She wouldn't get traumatized or anything or even feel anything at all because she's fake. A simulation.
It would feel like a very tight hole wrapped around your dick though.
She's fucking 2 years old, you degenerate. Kill yourself.
She isn't anything. She's not real dude.
doesn't change the fact that she is a depiction of a 2 year old child, a fucking baby.
Actually it does change the fact. When you kill someone on grand theft auto do you feel bad about it?
no, there is a clear difference.
If i watched drawn pictures of gay men fucking eachother, I would be a gay faggot. You would assume that i am attracted to men.
If degenerates like you fap to drawn children, I would assume that you are a pedophile who is attracted to kids. Now get off Any Forums and hang yourself.
No. That creature is ugly and im not into misery.
Pure suffering is a massive turn off even if its only simulated.
>I would assume that you are a pedophile who is attracted to kids
This is the logic I don't understand: the statement is true, yes. If you get off to kids, you're a pedophile. But shouldn't you WANT pedophiles to have access to fictional child pornography that doesn't require the employment of real children for its creation? Otherwise pedophiles don't get to reach catharsis at all, making them more likely to offend against real kids, making those REAL kids less safe. Like how punching a pillow makes you less likely to punch a person.
If you care about kids, you'd assume you'd want pedophiles to consume more animated CP, not less or none.
Its not logic. Its a trained response. Dont confuse an emotional outburst for thought.
no because
a) not into rape
b) not into her face
c) not into toddlers
i won't judge anyone's taste though, as long as the stuff is pure 3d rendering and no human was hurt in the creation
There would be zero suffering. It's a fucking 3d rendering following a script.
I felt bad when I killed a lady in Red Dead Redemption. Guilt is kind of a theme in that game.
By enabling the addiction, the pedo specimen would likely get bored and escalate to live children. The specimen's brain is wired wrong for ordinary life. A domestic violence male can punch a wall but does that mean he won't beat his wife because he's attempting to control his behaviors? You are a biological dead end, a freak of nature and you will eventually offend if you had the opportunity. Luckily most of you loli freaks aren't trusted alone with children in the first place because of your, appearance, behavior/demeanor and social awkwardness.
>By enabling the addiction, the pedo specimen would likely get bored and escalate to live children.
That's literally not true, though. We can see the patterns of sexual violence decline significantly as countries become increasingly sexually liberal; in places where the sale of sex toys and distribution of pornography are completely banned, sexual violence skyrockets. Likewise, in places where those things are allowed but with extremely heavy restrictions regarding what is "obscene" and what isn't, violence goes down but goes down even further in areas where sex is almost entirely ungoverned outside of what is not only obscene but immoral. There's a reason for this.
People aren't "normalized" into becoming pedophiles, they're pedophiles innately, and you have to deal with that rather than somehow forcing them to stifle it. They can't. Maybe we should provide a relatively healthy outlet instead.
>The specimen's brain is wired wrong for ordinary life. A domestic violence male can punch a wall but does that mean he won't beat his wife because he's attempting to control his behaviors?
In a way, yes, but that comparison doesn't work because he doesn't have a sexual compulsion to beat his wife; it comes from rage, not compulsion. If you give him healthy ways to manage his rage, he's significantly less likely to lash out toward his loved ones. Again, it's about resources.
>You are a biological dead end, a freak of nature and you will eventually offend if you had the opportunity.
I'm not a pedophile, I just don't quite see a reason to ban even animated child pornography. That could have negative effects.
>Luckily most of you loli freaks aren't trusted alone with children in the first place because of your, appearance, behavior/demeanor and social awkwardness.
I don't know if you can really know that, given you can't somehow know what someone's porn consumptions look like just by their appearance. There are plenty of awkward people who agree with you completely
>By enabling the addiction, the pedo specimen would likely get bored and escalate to live children.
You say this like children are drugs, like you can be a normal guy who gets "hooked" on children through exposure and develops some sort of dependency. This doesn't happen. Most people find sex with children utterly repulsive, the exception being the ones who don't. They don't "get" to that point, they're already attracted to children. They know they shouldn't act on it, and abstinence becomes a hell of a lot easier if you can have some sort of simulated experience without the consequences.
You can search it all up and find that those who actually abuse children would have without the need for escalation.
Loli and child dolls don't make someone more likely to move on to the real thing and may actually help them get rid of those temptations.
Looks and demeanor don't determine if you are pedo but if you are gay.
Look at young Epstein he looked like a chad and got tons of women his age.
Read the whole sentence.
OP is probably some high level member of NAMBLA or some shit. Neck yourself cunt.
People keep saying this and it remains as retarded as day one.
No one goes on a raping spree because they picked up a Playboy magazine.
>would you play it?
No. I find rape unappealing, especially if it includes crying, screaming and struggling. Also, I think you're a pretty messed up individual for coming up with this scenario.
Retarded opinion but I respect it
>Also, I think you're a pretty messed up individual for coming up with this scenario.
he said, on slash bee slash
Your perversion CAN NOT be normalized. It tries to deny basic parenting instinct, with us since long before we became modern humans. Only degeneracy and excess even let it happen in the first place. If you actively engage in child molestation, you deserve the fate you will receive. Neck yourself you fucking disgusting CHUD.
Probably not cuz I don’t watch porn but man what if there was a game that was hyper realistic real life simulator where you can do whatever you want without facing consequences?
It's a drawing, kid. Calm the fuck down.
Including rape and murder that would be the biggest selling game in history
Exactly, but it begs the question of would it lower crime because the desire can be fulfilled virtually without consequences or will it desensitize players and blur the lines of reality and fantasy?
people try to explain the origin of fetishes using that same logic. "oh, you get bored with normal sex/porn and it escalates to a point where eventually you require a Brazilian midget to stomp on your chest while a pro wrestler dressed as your father fists you and sings his ABCs backwards to the tune of Staying Alive," but that's not what happens. fetishes are discovered, not acquired. it's why most people who view normal porn for normal people don't venture beyond just that. you don't slip into fetishism, you find fetishes that were buried within because you gravitated toward them naturally.
so a little girl grape simulator, while disgusting, wouldn't escalate anything.