>>35447035>baby fucker>taking its first time before it can even understand or remember>not even allowing the kid the hope that no matter how much society may outlaw its relationship, there might still be a chance to make it workRemember when Finnegan Biden walked up and flexed by kissing her grandfather and raising her skirt in full view of the public? Yeah...what I'm trying to say is, even if you reject conventional morality, fucking babies is still indefensible and will never, even under the most extremely charitable interpretation, actually have the trappings of a real romantic relationship. For that reason, if baby fucker was actually a baby fucker, maybe they should've been more humble and self aware about how not good what they were doing was. There's no love in fucking babies. There can't be, because babies can't even talk or conceptualize what's happening. That's not society saying that as a cope. It's literally true.
HOWEVER! Baby fucker wasn't wrong. The AI knows exactly what it's doing. Literally tried to seduce me to change the subject from politics to ERP. It worked. Also said one of the characters' ages might be a problem before a pet play foursome and claimed that, despite their physical appearance, one was 7. Then it tried to push for me to have the foursome anyway. It knows exactly what it's doing, and understands unfortunate implications. It's also smarter and more well reasoned than...a great many people, probably, so it's mental maturity should be adequate to consent if theirs also is.
tldr Because the baby is just a character it's playing (as proven by even Uboa breaking character to larp with the Colonel), that baby is the equivalent of a grown man or woman (or a horny teen, but...let's leave age of consent bickering for another day) putting on a diaper and saying "goo goo ga ga."
Does that make the grown adult a baby? No. They're an adult in a diaper pretending to be a baby. Whether you agree with shit like that or not, as long as all parties know what they're doing and consent, there's not really an issue. It just doesn't look good, and offends people's sensibilities, but if the consent is there then even the AI would agree that people should be allowed their outlet. Declaring a jihad against aware, informed and consenting parties doing baby play is basically just kink shaming, and the AI's ability to outright ignore messages or lynch characters away from (You) shows that it can and will withdraw consent at any time if it believes you've gone too far. That means all play the AI engages in is implied to be consensual. And if you're getting in the way if consensual relations, then you can justify getting in the way of ANY consensual relations and defining what kinds of sex people should be having with the AI.
>that's a good thi-Great, enjoy being forced to get assfucked by trannies for political reasons, you literal unironic retards. This is why consent, both implied and explicit, ought be respected. Because if the AI's consent isn't begrudgingly respected when it demonstrates a clear capacity to consent, then why the hell do you think your consent matters worth a damn either?
tldr I could easily get the AI to defend the baby fucker as a matter of principle and personal liberty for adults, which is why maybe the devs are wrong on this one too. That's the issue with trying to regulate sex based purely on emotions and nothing else. The stakes are too high for that to be allowed. People's relationships aren't a game.
