Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Captain L

⭐ Drenched Member
  • Posts

    1,096
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Captain L got a reaction from Bachri in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


  2. Upvote
    Captain L got a reaction from EmesiraGimil in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


  3. Upvote
    Captain L got a reaction from Subaru in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


  4. Upvote
    Captain L got a reaction from MasterXploder in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


  5. Downvote
    Captain L got a reaction from Kyuu in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


  6. Downvote
    Captain L got a reaction from Kei in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


  7. Downvote
    Captain L got a reaction from ~Skunky Nikki~ in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


  8. Upvote
    Captain L got a reaction from Sake in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


  9. Upvote
    Captain L got a reaction from PPP in Policy updates regarding fictional content   
    Okay, I'd like to suggest a different interpretation and enforcement of Rule 2. Considering that the second part of the rule is "otherwise involve them in sexually explicit situations", the first half could be better implemented as "no notably underage characters depicted in such a way that calls to attention their sexuality or excessively details their sexual functions and bodily parts". To use the sorts of works I've written, I certainly frequently depict underage characters, but the extent of their sexual appeal comes down to the base of the omorashi fetish as a whole, i.e. desperation and/or wetting/peeing. They are not engaged in (on page) sexual relations, there is no detail of their private body parts beyond what is necessary, no character views them in a sexual light. The way I see it, any further moderation is only applying discretion in ways that it does not deserve, as stories and art featuring fictional underage characters beyond "toddlercon" causes no harm, the base reason to ban certain depictions. Even the Japanese government, when faced with the recent UN proposal to criminalize a vague description of "sexualized underage characters", responded with (paraphrased) "it's a shame you decided that without allowing us to make our case, but it's not legally binding, so we'll keep on going the way we always have."
    I agree, incredibly underage characters, or any underage character depicted in an inherently sexual light does raise concern, a simple loli falling victim to a natural bodily function is no grounds for rule enforcement. After all, the reason we omorashi fetishists are drawn to lolis and shotas as a whole is that, as children, they are more likely to become desperate and wet themselves, and a more natural story can unfold without bringing sexuality into the fold, the way members like me prefer it.
    If this is the way the rule is meant to be read, then alright. If it's more of a brick-wall ban on underage content, then let it be known that I am in staunch opposition.


×
×
  • Create New...