>>12455398Indeed. I don't see anything different on /lit/ and /x/ and /d/.
>why wouldn't you?Why would I? If I make a promise I intend to keep it no matter what.
>Can't you see how banning it for one group opens up the legal grounds for banning it for everyone?We are talking about children here. We don't ban alcohol for everybody just because children can't have any, do we? And we don't forbid adults from having sex just because children can't have it either. And if we're talking about precendents, we can take it in the other direction as well. Since homosexuality is now legal, who's to say that paedophilia won't be? See, the argument sounds the same, yet it's not actually that simple in either case.
>It's part of Blanchard's theory on transgenderism, but this was created some time ago. There are bound to be some flawsSuch as? People who have such a fetish do exist, and I think you agreed to that as well. Sure, not every transsexual is autogynephilic, so that might be the flaw. But there are men out there who get aroused by the idea of wearing a dress and doing things that are considered feminine.
Why would I like that? Wouldn't age play mean that a mature woman pretends to be a little girl for me?
>Is it really necessary, I guess is my gripeNobody forces you to open these pictures, you know. Why do you do it? Did you open the Bernie one too? Sure you did. Well, what did you think?
>I don't think of people, not just girls, in the same way as I didWhat do you mean? I don't think hormones excuse it, I mean every teenager is horny, but only the bisexual ones get aroused by both genders. So you must like both, is what I'm thinking, even if you prefer one over the other.
Oh, no that's Mercedes.
>>12455408That's actually a pretty wise decision.
