/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>5177010
Not him but the other guy you're arguing with. Your links are absolute garbage, the google docs one is about play therapy and barely touches on pedophilia. The drive has more on art and writing therapy (again) than in pedophilia. Even the articles are extremely broad reports on pedophilia and barely if ever mention or focus on 2D animated child pornography.
What am I supposed to be looking at? The part where the child molester behavioural analysis puts "drawings" in the child erotica section that is a part of the behavioural pattern of a child molester?
The part where between 30% and half of the reported "fantasy pedophiles" are also child molesters and have groomed children irl?
What part is it that you want me to read to understand your position? Whats the part that proves me wrong? Am I the first one to actually read this? There's no way no one has told you these things before.

>Literally the last paragraph on the pic supports my point.
The first paragraph says that after exposure to underage porn the subjects associated underaged models more sexually than before.
The second paragraph says that even after this they dont see pedophilia as normal and that exposure to CP doesnt make adults accept child pornography. Its literally what it says.
These are two disconnected statements. Please read your own articles, its a bare minimum.