Krawczyk: @poppy9999: DA has been getting stupid-tarded paranoid lately for some reason. They even deleted the original picture of Ariel from this set for being 'child porn' when she has obvious honkin' tatas. So yeah, I can believe this one would go.
Anonymous1: Technically it can only be "child porn" if there were actual children involved. Though it is somewhat taboo, it is completely legal to draw or otherwise render children committing sexual acts.
SirStefan02: In America children portrayed in ANY overtly sexual activity is banned as a caution. Legal or not, technical or not, if it looks like a juvenile (human, animal or otherwise) and MAY cause loss of revenue, it WILL be banned, or removed from public access. Only rarely have some "cartoon children" been allowed if the character has been around enough that it is accepted that they are "now" an adult. It's the will of MAMON.
Anonymous4: @SirStefan02: @SirStefan02: lmao no it’s not, do you even live in America? Because “a drawing is considered art. If and when there is a “child” involved in said art, it is not considered an actual child due to it being “Art” a piece of paper with ink on it” in America, no one gives a fuck. Because it’s fake and not real.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply