The amazing digital circus might thank part of its popularity to the nostalgia of the kidcore aesthetic featured troughout the circus.
The adult lead character pomni appears as a clown with little features that we would objectively associate with an adult wonen besides possessing the clear psychological maturity and intelligence of an adult.
The features of pomni could be described as short stature, a bright childlike color scheme, and large eyes relative to the face, a physiological trait often associated with infancy in mammals.
Now for science, is it pedophia to wank off to amazing digital circus porn of pomni and does it make a difference wether its a visual drawing or a text based work of fiction.
My point is not to convince you of annythhing just that your argument itself easily falls apart once one has to define “childlike features” into a legal/moral setting.
It’s a genuine very good youtube series that is rivalling industrial production quality and popularity, i am just using it as a very twisted example. Dont let my description stop you from watching it. Adc characters are not in any way portrayed in a sexual nature, unless you count this.
If someone is specifically into child like features and akshually they’re a 9000 year old dragon, yeah they’re a pedo
The amazing digital circus might thank part of its popularity to the nostalgia of the kidcore aesthetic featured troughout the circus.
The adult lead character pomni appears as a clown with little features that we would objectively associate with an adult wonen besides possessing the clear psychological maturity and intelligence of an adult.
The features of pomni could be described as short stature, a bright childlike color scheme, and large eyes relative to the face, a physiological trait often associated with infancy in mammals.
Now for science, is it pedophia to wank off to amazing digital circus porn of pomni and does it make a difference wether its a visual drawing or a text based work of fiction.
My point is not to convince you of annythhing just that your argument itself easily falls apart once one has to define “childlike features” into a legal/moral setting.
I thought I had an aneurysm trying to parse the first paragraph. I am not going to google any of that
It’s a genuine very good youtube series that is rivalling industrial production quality and popularity, i am just using it as a very twisted example. Dont let my description stop you from watching it. Adc characters are not in any way portrayed in a sexual nature, unless you count this.