>>51916379>the image is sexual.No, YOU find it sexual. That's the difference. There is nothing inherently sexual about it. The fact you see it that way speaks ьore about you than anything else.
> it's wearing fucking lingerie, Plenty of pokemon are drawn wearing all kinds of attire out there. All porn?
> it doesnt have to have its wet snussy out to be rule34Yes it is, because it HAS to be porn. Nobody forced you to bring term "rule34" but here it is:
"If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions."
Literally says porn. And now, after I've smashed your nose about the table of stupidity you have built here, instead of admititng your fuck up, you no longer can back off and resort to call art that does not classify as porn - such.
Speaking of autism.
