![little red and the wolf gay furry porn comic softpaws little red and the wolf gay furry porn comic softpaws](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d2/4e/d6/d24ed6ed5de4a59575ab0d8f952b4d35--red-riding-hood-little-red.jpg)
Some furs are intentionally short or even in the micro range. There's nothing against making midget porn. They have a group for people who like to be and look like adults but wear diapers and overalls and carry pacifiers. And where do midgets fit into all of this?!Įven the artists and cub fans would have to admit that the characters being young is. Yeah, all this stuff is wishy-washy and ill-defined, as tends to be the case when you legislate morality. But I'm not about to try and deny that the law applies to us, as much as I feel it should be revoked.
![little red and the wolf gay furry porn comic softpaws little red and the wolf gay furry porn comic softpaws](https://pm1.narvii.com/6684/77e243a8f21662256525928f09c438b838f1a196_hq.jpg)
I'm really not a fan of this law, as it means I'll have to try and purge the art from my laptop as a precautionary measure, and it puts websites and good individuals at risk. They also didn't ban keying the drawing into the side of somebody's car, but I think that would be considered a visual depiction as well. They're not going to go through and say that the list of entities which may not be visually depicted in having underage sex includes humans, animals, aliens, vampires, werewolves, zombies, robots, mermaids, and any mix thereof (heh, a robot zombie). And as far as it being furry making a difference, again I don't buy that argument, and I'm a furry myself. Sad as it is, I really don't think there's any arguing against this one. It's obvious that the character is intended to be a child in every way except for the disclaimer attempting to nullify this law." People over 18 don't need a babysitter, at that age they should've been the babysitter themselves for several years. Their parents are getting them a babysitter for the evening. That person is dressed and looks like a child. They probably have something like those "decency" checks, something like "if an average person, or the majority of a group of average people, would consider the person to be clearly underage, then they shall be classified as such."Īnd here's the common sense argument against some of the stuff: "Look. It's such an obvious loophole that I doubt the lawmakers didn't see that, or wouldn't be able to argue against it.