Describing one such masturbation “session”, Anderson wrote in his notebook in September of last year: “Started reading on the toilet: Boy who is staying with relatives happens to see his same-age friend masturbate… The boy who has admitted to everything has nothing to lose, so he throws himself over Tokio-kun and starts sniffing his cock and licking his smooth balls, and while waiting for the shot I came!”
Man, as someone who defends loli/shota on the grounds of free speech, I fucking loathe this man.
That is not research. That is a wank diary.
Research would be trying to find out how many consumer of loli/shota art/comics also pursued real photo and video content, or heaven forbid, physcial contact with children.
Research would be trying to find an answer to the simple question of 'how likely is it that someone who looks at this artwork is a danger to children?' That is research.
Whether or not you can nut over it is not research. I could nut over picture of a wooden chair if I wanted to.
Totally not surprised this dude is into the real thing.
You consistently declare that people using it aren't pedophile.
I would definitely never say anything so ridiculous as 'there aren't any pedophiles looking at this'. Of course some of the people looking at it are going to be pedophiles.
Many more, I suspect, will be remembering their past selves and their crush on their teacher. You would call someone a pedophile if they are imagining their past self as the cartoon boy? What are you accusing them of? Psychic time-travel rape of themselves? Absurd!
This is to say nothing of those who simply don't view cartoon characters as human. ...Which they aren't.
I should also mention the shotacon paper got the guy in trouble with the British government because he openly admitted to violating the UK lolisho ban.
Man, as someone who defends loli/shota on the grounds of free speech, I fucking loathe this man.
That is not research. That is a wank diary.
Research would be trying to find out how many consumer of loli/shota art/comics also pursued real photo and video content, or heaven forbid, physcial contact with children.
Research would be trying to find an answer to the simple question of 'how likely is it that someone who looks at this artwork is a danger to children?' That is research.
Whether or not you can nut over it is not research. I could nut over picture of a wooden chair if I wanted to.
Totally not surprised this dude is into the real thing.
You go well beyond defending it as speech. You consistently declare that people using it aren't pedophile. These are the people you're enabling
I would definitely never say anything so ridiculous as 'there aren't any pedophiles looking at this'. Of course some of the people looking at it are going to be pedophiles.
Many more, I suspect, will be remembering their past selves and their crush on their teacher. You would call someone a pedophile if they are imagining their past self as the cartoon boy? What are you accusing them of? Psychic time-travel rape of themselves? Absurd!
This is to say nothing of those who simply don't view cartoon characters as human. ...Which they aren't.