• Saapas@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 hours ago

    If you’re into these depictions because they’re depicted as children…

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      Is it because they depict children or because they depict child like features?

      By the first, technically adult characters in a child like body (lucky star) wouldn’t count.

      By the second, catgirl cosplay counts as bestiality.

      Things get seriously vague once you consider diverse aesthetic cores, like goth loli fashion. also technically is.

      Is it pedophilia if you wanna have sex in a ballpit with your adult partner while dressed as clowns while sucking oversized pacifiers? Just asking.

      • Saapas@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        If someone is specifically into child like features and akshually they’re a 9000 year old dragon, yeah they’re a pedo

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 minute ago

          The amazing digital circus might thank part of its popularity to the nostalgia of the kidcore aesthetic featured troughout the circus.

          The adult lead character pomni appears as a clown with little features that we would objectively associate with an adult wonen besides possessing the clear psychological maturity and intelligence of an adult.

          The features of pomni could be described as short stature, a bright childlike color scheme, and large eyes relative to the face, a physiological trait often associated with infancy in mammals.

          Now for science, is it pedophia to wank off to amazing digital circus porn of pomni and does it make a difference wether its a visual drawing or a text based work of fiction.

          My point is not to convince you of annythhing just that your argument itself easily falls apart once one has to define “childlike features” into a legal/moral setting.