Is it alright to mock and criticize pedophilia here?

[Treble]

The real one, not the fictional kink. As in, real adults who desire real minors in a sexual fashion.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

I've seen at least two QQ members identify as pedophiles, so it'd probably break the-

• Do not make personal attacks on other forum members.

Click to shrink...

-clause of Rule 1.

A literal reading of the recent* rule change regarding Rule 8 seems to allow discussion of pedophilia as long as you don't include personal attacks, but I'm not sure they had that in mind when writing it. I think staff would probably be more open to people calling pedophiles mentally ill at least, which isn't acceptable for LGBT+, so the text of the rule change isn't fully applicable. *shrugs*

*Wow, time sure flies fast huh.

Edit: Of course, if you see anyone say they have or will abuse a child in that way, or encourages others to do so, that'd probably break Rule 3, but the report should probably go to the police before QQ staff.

 

[Merlin]

The real one, not the fictional kink. As in, real adults who desire real minors in a sexual fashion.

Click to shrink...

Curious as to why in the first place, like yeah but in what context, in this forum, does this mater arise?

 

[Treble]

Curious as to why in the first place, like yeah but in what context, in this forum, does this mater arise?

Click to shrink...

I had a conversation with someone, as posted on the rants page, that gave me reason to wonder what I can and cannot say on the topic.

 

[S.I.N]

I've seen at least two QQ members identify as pedophiles, so it'd probably break the-

Click to shrink...

I know people like that are on here just based on the number of people, but it's still genuinely upsetting to here people outright admit it,

 

[Davos]

Might be my sleep deprivation speaking, but if you are talking about pedophile in general being a horrid thing that doesn't sound like it breaks the rule. If you are attacking X for being a pedo, probably. Though I would just ignore them and let them get caught

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

Might be my sleep deprivation speaking

Click to shrink...

Nah, don't think anyone (including pedophiles) would object to statements to the effect of 'pedophilia is awful'. Anyone wanting to vent about that is probably fine to do so, providing it's not derailing a thread.

 

[Smuthunter]

Kinkshaming is against the rules. Full stop.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

Kinkshaming is against the rules. Full stop.

Click to shrink...

Not going to lie, that seems like a bad line to draw. I get not wanting kink-shaming but when you go ''Paedophilia is a kink and we're not going to shame for it.'' that can get us into actual legal trouble, ignoring any other possible angle. It's an easy way to get shit posted here that gets the site taken down one day.

EDIT: And like, this is coming from a girl who writes noncon, rape and hardcore humiliation shit professionally and for a profit. I'm not some puritan pearl-clutcher.

 

[VisV]

I know people like that are on here just based on the number of people, but it's still genuinely upsetting to here people outright admit it,

Click to shrink...

Well yeah, it tends to be upsetting to realize that someone around you is potentially a few loosened inhibitions away from becoming a kiddy diddler

The line between fiction and reality needs to be real strong in someone's head, when it comes to loli and such. Because fiction is harmless, but only as long as you make sure it STAYS fiction.

 

[Smuthunter]

Not going to lie, that seems like a bad line to draw. I get not wanting kink-shaming but when you go ''Paedophilia is a kink and we're not going to shame for it.'' that can get us into actual legal trouble, ignoring any other possible angle. It's an easy way to get shit posted here that gets the site taken down one day.

EDIT: And like, this is coming from a girl who writes noncon, rape and hardcore humiliation shit professionally and for a profit. I'm not some puritan pearl-clutcher.

Click to shrink...

Having a kink and actually engaging in criminal behavior related to that kink are two very different things. If you want to attack child predators who have actually broken the law and hurt someone then that's a completely different kettle of fish, but attacking people who have an unfortunate mental condition but have chosen not to indulge in it outside of their fantasies is kinkshaming at best and thought crime at worst.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

Not going to lie, that seems like a bad line to draw. I get not wanting kink-shaming but when you go ''Paedophilia is a kink and we're not going to shame for it.'' that can get us into actual legal trouble, ignoring any other possible angle. It's an easy way to get shit posted here that gets the site taken down one day.

Click to shrink...

Think, legally, everything's groovy as long as it's clearly fiction (due to the servers being hosted in America). There's zero tolerance for anything that could be RL (like realistic art, for said legal, and assumedly moral, reasons), but there's plenty of underage and 'loli' smut, and I don't think people should be able to shit up those threads. No one is hurt in the making of those stories, no one is hurt by people reading them, and (allegedly) research shows it might even have some satiation effect.

I was mostly thinking (like OP) of rant threads, and pedophilia as it pertains to RL, where I don't think negative opinions of the condition are suppressed by the 'no kinkshaming' rule (and personal attacks aren't needed to express that).

Edit: It's like, in rants, someone could talk about how a drug addict in their life has impacted them, or talk generally about drug addiction in a negative way, but you can't* personally attack any particular user who has admitted to being an addict, or go into a thread with corruption smut involving drugs to shame people for enjoying it.

*Maybe. Rule 1 is relaxed in rants.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

Having a kink and actually engaging in criminal behavior related to that kink are two very different things. If you want to attack child predators who have actually broken the law and hurt someone then that's a completely different kettle of fish, but attacking people who have an unfortunate mental condition but have chosen not to indulge in it outside of their fantasies is kinkshaming at best and thought crime at worst.

Click to shrink...

I disagree.

Again, I am not coming into this from a puritan angle. I write porn for a living. I write noncon, rape stuff, even. So I totally get having dark kinks and I share them. But speaking as someone who DOES have dark kinks and also comes from a community that many would regard as borderline at best... there still has to be limits. In fact, the darker it gets, the more limits you absolutely need to have! Because not everyone in that community is going to have self control, and there are plenty of people who will be joyous at the lack of need to police themselves.

Am I saying that people who are attracted to children who never act on it are bad people? No, I am not. No more than I am saying that girls who fantasise about being raped are bad people, or guys who safely play out such scenarios with their GFs are bad people.

But I am saying that if you create a space that is welcoming to paedophile, it will be used and not everyone who uses it can be trusted not to fuck up the site. All it needs is one person with a grudge, someone with a stock of irl pictures they want to share, someone who got kicked for a totally different reason and wants revenge.

Any of that could fuck us hard and long.

People aren't responsible for their urges, but are responsible for how they deal with them and not everyone you attract with a reputation for being friendly to paedophiles will be able or even willing to try.

Think, legally, everything's groovy as long as it's clearly fiction (due to the servers being hosted in America). There's zero tolerance for anything that could be RL (like realistic art, for said legal, and assumedly moral, reasons), but there's plenty of underage and 'loli' smut, and I don't think people should be able to shit up those threads. No is hurt in the making of those stories, no one is hurt by people reading them, and (allegedly) research shows it might even have some satiation effect.

Click to shrink...

I am actually drawing a line between loli and pedo stuff here. Like I said, I'm no pearl clutcher and if people want to play around with loli stuff? Well, it's not my thing, but they don't need my approval and I am not going to cause problems for them.

my main concern here is actual site members who outright own the paedophile title like it's something to be proud of. It's not something you can help, and having it doesn't make you a bad person if you don't act on it... but nor is it something that you should flaunt or draw pride from. Being sexually attracted to actual kids is bad. Controlling it and yourself is laudable, and I don't believe someone who manages to do that is automatically a bad person.

But they're still struggling with something bad. Trying to reframe that urge as not bad is, honestly, a little bit worrying?

 

[Treble]

Should I ping a mod or something?

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

Should I ping a mod or something?

Click to shrink...

Seen a variety of mods in 'Users who are viewing this thread', so they know. Might be conferring, waiting till everyone (or at least a select few) staff have chimed in, before responding. *shrug* Don't think there's a rush anyhow.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

Seen a variety of mods in 'Users who are viewing this thread', so they know. Might be conferring, waiting till everyone (or at least a select few) staff have chiming in, before responding. *shrug* Don't think there's a rush anyhow.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, should be fine. I am sure they have seen it and this is probably the sort of topic they'd wanna talk out a bit.

I don't think anyone here has broken any rules or done anything to call down some kind of instant action, and they presumably know we'll back off if they want us to, so no rush.

 

[Smuthunter]

But I am saying that if you create a space that is welcoming to paedophile, it will be used and not everyone who uses it can be trusted not to fuck up the site. All it needs is one person with a grudge, someone with a stock of irl pictures they want to share, someone who got kicked for a totally different reason and wants revenge.

Any of that could fuck us hard and long.

Click to shrink...

That sort of behavior violates other rules that we already have in place. "Don't be a dick to other posters" and "don't post illegal content" for starters. That sort of conduct will be punished accordingly without board members taking it upon themselves to treat more people the way they already treat NTR fetishists.

 

[Vanbers]

Questions like this are why Rants is terrible (despite my posting there).

Because let's be honest, we're not here for in depth discussions on pedophilia. We're here to read smut. And if not for Rants and people that apparently just can't fucking help themselves bringing up and discussing pedophilia, it's a literal "Sir, this is a Wendy's" moment.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

All it needs is one person with a grudge, someone with a stock of irl pictures they want to share, someone who got kicked for a totally different reason and wants revenge.

Click to shrink...

I don't think QQ would be held liable if someone dumped CP, whatever the motive, otherwise most large internet sites wouldn't survive. I'm pretty sure that's happened on SB before, and possibly QQ*, so as long as the fiction distinction is clearly drawn and enforced, I don't think the userbase threaten the site in that way.

If you're talking about some other way this tolerance could impact the site, could you please clarify? Like, the only thing I can think of is 'normalisation might make them forget it's a bad thing' (which equally applies to non-con), but I think as long as you can stridently condemn child abuse (separate from pedophilia) as it pertains to RL, that should be enough?

*Might've been a 'the model was 18+, the caption said underage, zero tolerance' kinda thing.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

That sort of behavior violates other rules that we already have in place. "Don't be a dick to other posters" and "don't post illegal content" for starters. That sort of conduct will be punished accordingly without board members taking it upon themselves to treat more people the way they already treat NTR fetishists.

Click to shrink...

I don't think you get what I am saying.

I'm not suggesting treating people badly or trying to shun then. I am saying that having paedophile actively protected by the rules would be a bad look for us. I am saying that actively inviting people with paedophile to come and post here massively up the chance of something like what we talked about happening, and I am saying that it's opening us to a ton of risk without much reward.

I am certainly not advocating harassing posters nor have I ever in this thread or any other.

I don't think QQ would be held liable if someone dumped CP, whatever the motive, otherwise most large internet sites wouldn't survive. I'm pretty sure that's happened on SB before, and possibly QQ*, so as long as the fiction distinction is clearly drawn and enforced, I don't think the userbase threaten the site in that way.

Click to shrink...

It's happened on Sb and it caused the mods to go nuclear and there were actual fears that legal stuff might have to happen. I know of at least one example where a poster wanted to force a thread closed so dumped a ton of CP on it.

As to your question, it does happen, yeah and usually the site is fine but it's still not a thing that an owner or staff member wants to happen and just because usually a site is fine, it doesn't mean it always will be.

That goes double for a site like this that trades in smut. Let's be honest, if there is one thing that SB and Sv both have other QQ - in the eyes of most of the public - it's respectability. We're dedicated to porn here and for a lot of people, that alone puts a target on our back. Now combine that with the potential of CP being posted, even without our consent, and we might have a more difficult time bouncing back than other sites because it could be argued that we encouraged it or created a permissive atmosphere where other sites would be shielded against that because they're not porn based.

By being what we are, we're already on thin ice as far as a lot of the internet and world in general is concerned. There's no reason to take on extra risk.

If you're talking about some other way this tolerance could impact the site, could you please clarify? Like, the only thing I can think of is 'normalisation might make them forget it's a bad thing' (which equally applies to non-con), but I think as long as you can stridently condemn child abuse (separate from pedophilia) as it pertains to RL, that should be enough?

Click to shrink...

Actually, I am glad you brought up that point! Okay, so obviously, I've clarified my point in the above post, this one is just an extra. But I do think there can be a talk about normalisation. noncon is in fact a very good example because I am extremely familiar with it. I write it, I profit of it, I work in and even manage communities based heavily around it.

Normalisation is actually something we work extremely hard against. There are multiple frameworks and guidelines that you have to go through to even be part of the community. This includes explicit rules, a red-green-yellow light system (even for those who aren't playing) verification that all users are over 18, active staff both able and willing to step in and also who can demonstrate that they *know* what they're talking about and constant community policing both by the staff and the community itself in order to drive in the fact that a game is a game and not real life and to avoid normalisation.

Because if we don't do all of that?

Normalisation can happen. Not always. it depends on the people, on the group, but that's a genuine issue that we've run up against.

There's a reason why darker, harder kinks like this throw out so many rules, so much framework and have absolutely zero tolerance when someone goes too far.

It's because if we don't, we encourage the worst aspects a person can have and even if most people won't fall that far, the fact is that there are always a handful who will and we have to be aware of that.

 

[Vanbers]

I'm not suggesting treating people badly or trying to shun then. I am saying that having paedophile actively protected by the rules would be a bad look for us. I am saying that actively inviting people with paedophile to come and post here massively up the chance of something like what we talked about happening, and I am saying that it's opening us to a ton of risk without much reward.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'actively protected by the rules'.

The only 'protection' they have, is the same 'protection' anyone else on the site has.

Like, they don't get special treatment, fam.

There's a reason why darker, harder kinks like this throw out so many rules, so much framework and have absolutely zero tolerance when someone goes too far.

Click to shrink...

We already have a zero tolerance policy for CP. I'm not sure what more you want beyond "Ban anyone that ever says they're a pedo instantly".

We're not asking you to accept pedophilia as good and normal, we're saying to treat posters like posters. If anything, the issue is that people apparently bring up pedophilia enough for Treble to bring up this asinine topic. How about we just try to avoid discussing pedophilia, since it's not what any of us are here for or use the site for?

If someone posts CP, it's an instant ban, without question, with the post flat-out removed. That's already a thing.

If someone says they're a pedo, it's fucking weird, but not bannable. Just tell them it's not really the place for that or put them on ignore.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'actively protected by the rules'.

The only 'protection' they have, is the same 'protection' anyone else on the site has.

Like, they don't get special treatment, fam.

Click to shrink...

I mean what the guy I was originally responding to was saying.

If criticising paedophile is kink-shaming, and kink-shaming is banned by the rules, criticising paedophilia is banned by the rules.

Straight up.

We already have a zero tolerance policy for CP. I'm not sure what more you want beyond "Ban anyone that ever says they're a pedo instantly".

Click to shrink...

I mean, I didn't even say that? TBH, it feels a bit like you're looking for a target because you're painting me with things I didn't say. Look over my posts in this thread. Tell me once where I said people should be banned for any reason.

Not gonna lie, it kinda feels like you're arguing with what you think I'm saying and not what I actually am.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

I don't think you get what I am saying.

Click to shrink...

I also don't get what you're saying.

I'm not suggesting treating people badly or trying to shun then. I am saying that having paedophile actively protected by the rules would be a bad look for us. I am saying that actively inviting people with paedophile to come and post here massively up the chance of something like what we talked about happening, and I am saying that it's opening us to a ton of risk without much reward.

I am certainly not advocating harassing posters nor have I ever in this thread or any other.

Click to shrink...

What exactly are you suggesting? You don't think pedophiles should be harassed or shunned or treated badly, but you don't think they should be protected by the rules? What rule specifically should they be exempt from, if not rule 1? Do you want a new rule that bans anyone who admits to being a pedophile? Maybe an expansion of rule 8, the 'anti-shitstorm rule'? That'd be a clear stance, though I don't think I'd classify that as 'removing protection', and I'm not convinced of the necessity.

Also, AFAIAA, no one is actively inviting pedophiles to join, they just do. The rules on that front haven't changed TTBOMK since the site's founding. From the start, the site was accused of being a den of pedophiles (due to loli), and the owner seems to have accepted the PR hit and risk to allow greater freedom of expression. Things don't currently seem to be on fire, which, while not any kind of future guarantee, probably indicates a need for a greater justification than a vague worry.

It's happened on Sb and it caused the mods to go nuclear and there were actual fears that legal stuff might have to happen. I know of at least one example where a poster wanted to force a thread closed so dumped a ton of CP on it.

Click to shrink...

There'd be legal problems if they left it up, but I'm pretty sure there's liability protection as long as you make a good faith effort to moderate. Not that anyone wants to go to court regardless, but that's just part and parcel of owning a site.

I think there might've been efforts to remove that protection in the US, I haven't kept track of that and it'd be Rule 8 anyway, so there's a reasonable concern there, but the entire internet would cease to function in its current form if that protection went away (so it presumably hasn't happened yet). If that happens, by all means, change with the times to (try to) survive, but I don't think you need to do so before times change.

Normalisation is actually something we work extremely hard against. There are multiple frameworks and guidelines that you have to go through to even be part of the community. This includes explicit rules, a red-green-yellow light system (even for those who aren't playing) verification that all users are over 18, active staff both able and willing to step in and also who can demonstrate that they *know* what they're talking about and constant community policing both by the staff and the community itself in order to drive in the fact that a game is a game and not real life and to avoid normalisation.

Because if we don't do all of that?

Normalisation can happen. Not always. it depends on the people, on the group, but that's a genuine issue that we've run up against.

Click to shrink...

You seem to be talking about a more active (role-playing?) community than QQ, as none of the non-con smut I've read on this site, or other similar sites, have any kinda barrier to entry beyond sometimes 'please make an account' or 'click to say you are 18+'.

I don't think stopping pedophiles from identifying as such will help fight against normalisation, if that is a risk, more than being able to honestly (and politely) talk about it with the afflicted if they do have any dangerous misconceptions.

Edit:

I mean what the guy I was originally responding to was saying.

If criticising paedophile is kink-shaming, and kink-shaming is banned by the rules, criticising paedophilia is banned by the rules.

Straight up.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, saying pedophilia is bad for all involved should be fine. So, with this clarification, I guess we agree?

If anyone genuinely seems like they believe rape is okay, I think we should also be able to argue against that, but, at least in story threads, a good faith assumption that we all know the difference between reality and fiction is there to stop constant derails and buzzkills.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

Yeah, saying pedophilia is bad for all involved should be fine. So, with this clarification, I guess we agree?

Click to shrink...

I mean yeah. That's basically all I really wanted. My main fear was that paedophile would be considered a kink, which means that it would be against the rules to say anything against it at all.

I was never trying to argue for bans or start some kind of weird purge. If I was the sort to do that, I wouldn't be here in the first place.

If anyone genuinely seems like they believe rape is okay, I think we should also be able to argue against that, but, at least in story threads, a good faith assumption that we all know the difference between reality and fiction is there to stop constant derails and buzzkills.

Click to shrink...

Oh yeah, totally! And that's a good example, actually. Like, I write story threads all the time where I put together noncon scenes and am totally happy that everyone can tell the division between them and reality.

But if I started to refer to myself as rape-bait, and posted about how much I wanted to get raped even on threads that had nothing to do with story stuff at all, people should be able to call me out as being weird, right? That's totally fair even if I am not doing something worthy of a ban, I'm definitely dragging stuff to where it shouldn't be.

 

[Vanbers]

Not gonna lie, it kinda feels like you're arguing with what you think I'm saying and not what I actually am.

Click to shrink...

I honestly don't know what you're saying, but assuming it's this:

If criticising paedophile is kink-shaming, and kink-shaming is banned by the rules, criticising paedophilia is banned by the rules.

Click to shrink...

then, an example for you:

I write noncon, rape stuff, even. So I totally get having dark kinks and I share them.

Click to shrink...

"I think rape is fucked up. It's gross, disgusting, and a horrific violation. Rapists are scum."

Is this critique of rape criticising rape, and thus something I should get dinged and banned for?

No. Because that would be stupid. Because I am obviously referring to the actual real life crime of rape, and not noncon kink content. Context matters.

Someone saying they're a pedo is fine. It's fucking weird and not the place for it, but ultimately fine. I don't think they should get dinged just for being a fucking weirdo, though.

Anyways, you can say fucking kids is fucked up and wrong, you just can't harass another poster because they're a fucking weirdo. People saying they're attracted to real kids is fucking weird and gross, the same way someone saying they really want to fuck their dog, or kidnap and violate their coworker against their will in real life is fucking weird and gross, but unless they're an actual criminal or admitting/confessing that they DID A THING, then it's *just* fucking weird.

You can say the real life crime of pedophilia is fucked up and wrong all day long, but you can't say that FICTIONAL CONTENT posted is fucked up and wrong. The former is critiquing pedophilia, the latter is kinkshaming. I don't think this is super complex at all.

Again, to reiterate in a way you might understand better:

You can say that [Real World Crime, e.g. 'Rape', 'Pedophilia', etc.] is bad. You can't say [Fictional Content e.g. 'Noncon', 'Loli', etc.] is bad. The former is critiquing a real life [BAD THING], the latter is kinkshaming.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

I honestly don't know what you're saying, but assuming it's this:

Click to shrink...

I am saying that having paedophile explicitly protected under the rules is a bad look to the rest of the internet and the world. I am saying that having it protected under kink-shaming makes it look like we consider paedophile to be a kink and not an issue that real people genuinely struggle with.

I am saying that if we get an official ruling that just goes ''Shaming paedophilia isn't allowed'' then we're very much looking like we're setting up a sanctuary that encourages it and not everyone who flees to that sanctuary would be willing or able to follow the rules.

I am not pushing for bans or to shame current members or to drive anyone out or anything silly like that.

Like, is it wording that's the issue here? Honest question. When you say ''paedophilia'' I certainly don't consider anything fictional. That's loli and I am not and was never talking about that.

then, an example for you:

"I think rape is fucked up. It's gross, disgusting, and a horrific violation. Rapists are scum."

Is this critique of rape criticising rape, and thus something I should get dinged and banned for?

No. Because that would be stupid. Because I am obviously referring to the actual real life crime of rape, and not noncon kink content. Context matters.

Someone saying they're a pedo is fine. It's fucking weird and not the place for it, but ultimately fine. I don't think they should get dinged just for being a fucking weirdo, though.

Click to shrink...

I mean, neither do I? I didn't say anyone should. I haven't argued for bans or any kind of punishment at all. I've even explicitly said that I don't believe people struggling with that urge who don't hurt children are bad people.

You can say the real life crime of pedophilia is fucked up and wrong all day long, but you can't say that FICTIONAL CONTENT posted is fucked up and wrong. The former is critiquing pedophilia, the latter is kinkshaming. I don't think this is super complex at all.

Click to shrink...

I mean again, this seems to be where you're reading more into what I said than I actually intended? look back over my posts. Find one point, any point, where I said anything about fictional content, stories or anythng of that nature.

I didn't even mention it. It just feels to me that maybe you've had previous debates and you're overlying it on this one? Because a lot of the stuff you're focusing on I have not, in fact, said.

You can say that [Real World Crime, e.g. 'Rape', 'Pedophilia', etc.] is bad. You can't say [Fictional Content e.g. 'Noncon', 'Loli', etc.] is bad. The former is critiquing a real life [BAD THING], the latter is kinkshaming.

Click to shrink...

This is what I mean, though. Like right here, on this thread, I have explicitly said that I have nothing against loli.

I am starting to really feel that you're arguing with someone in your head and not actually me.

 

[LurkingInTheDeceit]

Vanbers: Correct me if I'm wrong BronzePlaceWriter, but the main thing BPW is worried about, is that, when someone who identifies as a pedophile* says they want to fuck a RL kid, it's against the rules to tell them that 'doing so would be abhorrent, so don't'. That's it.

*I'm typing that word way too much today.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

Vanbers: Correct me if I'm wrong BronzePlaceWriter, but the main thing BPW is worried about, is that, when someone who identifies as a pedophile* says they want to fuck a RL kid, it's against the rules to tell them that 'doing so would be abhorrent, so don't'. That's it.

*I'm typing that word way too much today.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much, yeah. I get that people enjoy loli stuff for instance, I get that there is a disconnect between reality and fantasy and that's okay. I never really felt like that was something I was worried about or threatened by in any way. But I have seen members here on this very site who identify as paedophiles and I feel it would be pretty messed up if someone who identified that way was able to go and say ''Yeah, I want to fuck kids'' and telling them that this was pretty messed up was somehow against the rules.

 

[Biigoh]

I am not pushing for bans or to shame current members or to drive anyone out or anything silly like that.

Click to shrink...

Let me replace what you just said with non-consent instead of pedo.

Because non-con is rape and sexual assault, we need to get rid of all of that from QQ as defending that or having that on QQ is a bad look.

 

[BronzePlaceWriter]

Let me replace what you just said with non-consent instead of pedo.

Because non-con is rape and sexual assault, we need to get rid of all of that from QQ as defending that or having that on QQ is a bad look.

Click to shrink...

That's actually not what I said. Like, I explicitly said that I was okay with loli stuff. explicitly. I was not talking about fictional stuff at all.

I'm sorry, but that was a dumb comparison. I didn't even ask to get rid of anything.

EDIT:

Let me turn it back on you.

Should posters be able to go around telling others posters that they want to have sex with children while being shielded by the rules for it? Because if paedophilia is considered under the rules to be a kink, then yes, that is what could happen.

Like, people keep trying to drag this back to content. As if I am worried in any way about stories, or fiction or anything like that. My main and only objection is that it can verge into real life stuff.