preteens models com

[Veileaveassam]

spam

[worldruler086]

PEDOPHILIA WHY

[Yukar9]

Wait, did this forum just get spammed by somebody selling cp? wtf?

[RevStoningpot]

Let's delve into the discussion of the lesser of two evils. In the world of jerking it to little girls there are three types of "porn" available. The first, I feel needs no debate, is certainly the worse of the three and that would be actual pornographic pictures of girls. But there are the "legal" pictures that aren't technically porn and readily available as things tend to be on the internet. One is the kind Mr. Bot was offering, the no nudes. The other is family photos of nudist families, which have everything from naked baby to naked grannies. Now, I want to see some controversial debate over which is the lesser of two evils. On one hand, the nudes are, well, nude where as the others are not. But on the other hand, the no nudes tend to be dressed up in sexy lingerie and made to pose in seductive positions, where as the nudists are just family photos of unmolested nudists enjoying a free happy nudist life style. All right there are the sides, which is worse nude and non-sexual, or non-nude and sexy? Lets see some super duper controversial debate now. Dare anyone voice an opinion?

[worldruler086]

THE ONE THAT IS INTENDED TO BE USED AS WANK MATERIAL IS THE MORE EVIL ONE. THIS WAS INTENDED AS WANK MATERIAL, BUT IT WAS "NO NUDE", AS IF THAT MADE IT OK. WHAT THE FUCK.

[mitte90]

well if the child is not abused then its not that big of a deal.. but the legal "non" porn will sooner or later lead to real child porn.

[worldruler086]

well if the child is not abused then its not that big of a deal.. but the legal "non" porn will sooner or later lead to real child porn.

People can have any fetish they want besides pedophilia. Wanting to fuck kids, even if they are pictures (or even drawings) of kids is despicable. Even if it isn't an actual kid, this leads to a slippery slope. Just because it's "legal" doesn't mean we should not condemn it. The fact there is a site devoted toward this literally made me sick to my stomach.

[mitte90]

u have the right to have whatever fetishes u like as long as u dont force that fetish on anyone else. even if a child says yes u still count that as no

i dont see any problem with people wanking of watching a drawing of a child as long as they never touch a real child

[LoneSoldier55]

WANKER.

[RevStoningpot]

personally, as far as my tastes in porn go, I need nudity ti get off. So i can't even begin to see how the clothed pictures are any good for wanking. But then again I also like my porn to have sex in it, so i can't see the appeal of nude people, kids or any one, just standing around. But the fact you bring up that the intentions behind taking a picture are far more impure in the no nudes. So I guess i'd have to agree that it's worse. As for drawings, which i hadn't even thought of before, seems harmless if anything you could just say your drawings are adult humans fucking adult hobbits. Fantasy is just that, though a weak mind giving into unsavory fantasies can potentially take their desires into the real world. However, in a "lesser of 3 evils" situation i think we could agree that drawings are much less evil than the either style of picture.