What are your arguments against pacifier fetish?

ICXCLuvr

ICXCLuvr

if I break rules pls warn
Joined
Oct 14, 2023
Posts
16,799
Reputation
23,457
Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's
 
  • JFL
  • +1
  • Nerd
Reactions: accinr, Stalker, soapbubble and 10 others
I’m rocking with it
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: irfij, hypernormie, horseman. and 3 others
Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's
Pacifiers are typically associated with babies, thats all I really have to say.
 
  • +1
Reactions: GreenFrog, KronionTheGreat, irfij and 11 others
theres no way you're genuinely serious about this
 
  • +1
Reactions: armenianpsycho77, taylorhillshusband and BOX13
nigga wtf is that?
 
  • +1
Reactions: irfij and taylorhillshusband
theres no way you're genuinely serious about this
I am, you are racist that’s more harmful than my fetish.
Pacifiers are typically associated with babies, thats all I really have to say.
okay but if I explicitly state that I am not attracted to babies themselves then how is it immoral or harmful
 
  • +1
Reactions: yushmaxx
Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
buying a dead chicken and doing yk what with it is entirely legal and doesn’t harm anyone, doesn’t mean that I can’t look at you with prejudice, no need for an argument
 
  • +1
Reactions: J6C5 and nontdisciple
nigga wtf is that?
964091BA D400 4A47 81D6 BDB8F72B3F68
 
Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's
what a random tagging
 
pacifiers promote bad tongue posture therefore they promote recession therefore they are a looksmin therefore they shouldnt be accepted in a looksmax forum therefore im da goat therefore #nopacifiers therefore i nailed it
 
  • +1
Reactions: J6C5, soapbubble and nontdisciple
It’s women
buying a dead chicken and doing yk what with it is entirely legal and doesn’t harm anyone, doesn’t mean that I can’t look at you with prejudice
you would have no logical reason to do so tho, also, that would be beastility and necrophilia, these are ai generated women consenting
 
We got eyes on you nigga 😂
 
  • +1
Reactions: J6C5 and gconqestor
it is very high T
 
  • +1
Reactions: J6C5, ICXCLuvr and stalk
Fetishizing objects associated with children. Very likely to attract people who are genuine predators.
 
Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's
i dont like lolicon, bruh, despite my avi
 
you would have no logical reason to do so tho, also, that would be beastility and necrophilia, these are ai generated women consenting
you don’t have an argument for necrozoophilia being objectively immoral or anything either lol that’s the same exact shit
 
  • +1
Reactions: ICXCLuvr
you don’t have an argument for necrozoophilia being objectively immoral or anything either lol that’s the same exact shit
Yeah so it’s just weird. Mines is less weird
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: Quetila
It’s really not that deep, people just want to moral fag
 
  • +1
Reactions: ClackChoopedAsFk, iblamemyhabits and ICXCLuvr
you don’t have an argument for necrozoophilia being objectively immoral or anything either lol that’s the same exact shit
I already gave the argument against OP. And basically every type of reason there could be for not doing something is a reason not to fuck dead animals
 
  • +1
Reactions: Quetila
Yeah so it’s just weird. Mines is less weird
but it’s subjective, no objective argument and it’s fine

imo the pacifier thing is oddly indirect, I can sense you’re hiding something
 
What am I hiding

so it’s just ur opinion nd I don’t deserve to be banned
What exactly about the pacifier makes a woman more attractive to you?
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Quetila
so it’s just ur opinion nd I don’t deserve to be banned
by subjective I was referring to you claiming that it’s less weird, it’s not objectively less or more weird
 
by subjective I was referring to you claiming that it’s less weird, it’s not objectively less or more weird
Weird is what’s deviating from social Norms and being attracted to dead animals is more deviant than liking women with a pacifier
 
buying a dead chicken and doing yk what with it is entirely legal and doesn’t harm anyone, doesn’t mean that I can’t look at you with prejudice, no need for an argument
False equivalence, you can’t compare necrophiallia to an ai picture of a 18+ lady wearing some plastic
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: accinr and ICXCLuvr
I am, you are racist that’s more harmful than my fetish.

okay but if I explicitly state that I am not attracted to babies themselves then how is it immoral or harmful
It's an object associated with the nurturing and upbringing of infants. It's taboo because it is fetishistic in nature, where you're externalizing sexual arousal onto inanimate objects (in this case pacifiers) which is a facilitated process that comes to be via exposure and association, so people most likely intrinsically understand that you're maladaptive, or in other words that something seriously went wrong with you from the beginning for this association to be made in your brain in the first place.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Tenres
It's an object associated with the nurturing and upbringing of infants. It's taboo because it is fetishistic in nature, where you're externalizing sexual arousal onto inanimate objects (in this case pacifiers) which is a facilitated process that comes to be via exposure and association, so people most likely intrinsically understand that you're maladaptive, or in other words that something seriously went wrong with you from the beginning for this association to be made in your brain in the first place.
How is it objectively wrong or harmful other than taboo aka weird aka different? You just insulted me at the end there, didn’t provide an argument on why I deserve to be banned or killed for this fetish.:feelsuhh:
 
Genuinely? It doesn’t harm anyone. It doesn’t depict real life children or even animated ones like lolicon, it’s just an object.

I will listen to your arguments,

Inb4 “muh it’s weird bro!1!1”
@alurmo @ClackChoopedAsFk @gconqestor @yushmaxx @GG's
i dont care what you do as long as i get my reps im chilling
 
  • Ugh..
Reactions: ICXCLuvr
False equivalence, you can’t compare necrophiallia to an ai picture of a 18+ lady wearing some plastic
You bought a dead animal and you can do anything with it, it’s not necrophilia either it’s necrozoophilia. Both are harmless and it’s everything that matters. (Subjectively disgusting imo)

a 18+ lady wearing some plastic
It’s ironic that you’re talking about false equivalence, you’re biased, an inserted dildo is just wearing some plastic as well
 
How is it objectively wrong or harmful other than taboo aka weird aka different? You just insulted me at the end there, didn’t provide an argument on why I deserve to be banned or killed for this fetish.:feelsuhh:
Dude just explained why people dislike it, not why it’s wrong or immoral @killcry bend knee
 
How is it objectively wrong or harmful other than taboo aka weird aka different? You just insulted me at the end there, didn’t provide an argument on why I deserve to be banned or killed for this fetish.:feelsuhh:

P1) If objects associated with children being sexualized increases the chance of child abuse, then we should minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes
P2)Affirm the antecedent
C) Conclude with the consequent

Next argument starts with the conclusion

P1) If We should minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes and the best way to minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes in this context is through banning @ICXCLuvr, then we should ban @ICXCLuvr
P2) We should minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes (conclusion of argument 1)
P3) the best way to minimize the exposure of people to pacifier fetishes in this context is through banning @ICXCLuvr
C) we should ban @ICXCLuvr

This is conclusive. @Mods ban this nigger rn
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: nontdisciple and horseman.
You bought a dead animal and you can do anything with it, it’s not necrophilia either it’s necrozoophilia. Both are harmless and it’s everything that matters. (Subjectively disgusting imo)
Necrophilia is not harmless it goes against the consent of a human being and their dignity, I could apply the same argument to an animal too, it’s against their dignity and consent.

These are of age AI generated women consenting
 

Similar threads

pleasevanity
Replies
1
Views
28
pleasevanity
pleasevanity
Old Büll
Replies
9
Views
95
ICXCLuvr
ICXCLuvr
C
Replies
18
Views
92
pwoanfrdg
pwoanfrdg
ICXCLuvr
Replies
19
Views
138
ICXCLuvr
ICXCLuvr

Users who are viewing this thread

  • BOX13
  • michael555
Back
Top