Ah yes, I was waiting for the classic "I know more about you than you do yourself" line. I can die happy now.
Listen, if people want to drown themselves in their degenerate fantasies, fine, but don't get all mad when people rightfully call you out on it. Sorry they'll are "butthurt," to use your term.
I asked you a question and you're telling me I've fallen into my own trap. Learn to argue. You missed the entire point of a joke thread. Came in here telling people that they're degenerates for getting off on tentacle porn, insulted other posters for no other reason other than to try to gain some moral high ground, and now you're acting as if though you can just ignore questions.
I didn't say thought police. I said moral police. Two different things. Learn to read.
If she tastes like trout... get the f**k out
if she tastes like chicken... Keep on lickin'
I had already read the thread and you chose to ignore half my post which is typical of some one who cant answer as the questions were directed at you. But alas here are a shit ton of your quotes saying the same thing I mentioned in my opening statement. So I guess I'll apply my questions to them quote by quote and if you dodge again I'll assume you are just trolling.
This is an unrefined version of your argument. Pixels/art can arouse people. At this point in the thread you had not yet indicated the subject the pixels represent had to be "real". Regardless this goes back to my first question from my previous post. What if it was a painting or a photo that used film and wasn't pixels? Are these other mediums also banned from causing arousal to "normal" people?
This is the crux of your argument, but it needs clarification from you. What about photos or images that are photoshopped? or digitally enhanced?
What about ultra-realistic art of real people? What about human characters envisioned by the artist that aren't based on real people?
Is it wrong once the subject isn't human? Or is it once she isn't real? Please clarify.
This statement seems to imply the person MUST be based in reality. What about characters people play in movies are those a nono? What about general roleplay in the bedroom where adults enact sexual fantasies pretending to be people/things they aren't. Bob isn't a police officer irl but maybe his wife is turned on by him pretending to be one. Is this wrong? He isn't a real police officer. What if you role play a character that doesn't actually exist, is it wrong then?
What about cgi of a real person? is it ok because its based off them? When if its a photoshopped image to enhance preferred proportions?
In the end I get the impression your ability to fantasize if just very vanilla compared to some people. I'm not saying you or I have to find Squid form azshara attractive but you seem very rigid in what is "healthy" arousal.
I think they made her face actually way too cute. She was supposed to be hot (they failed with her TW self in that regard as well), but her current face is way too round and those stripes on her cheeks make her look cutesy, not sexy. That's my opinion on her humanoid parts.. as for the rest:
Not a degenerate that is into monster bodies, so no I would not date a squid monster like her.
I'll keep this easy for you: you can't compare real people to imaginary ones. Photoshop means it's no longer real, hyper-realistic drawings are not real by definition, computer generated images are not real by definition, and movie characters are not real but the actors themselves are. I thought this was an easy concept, but the general replies here indicate otherwise...