Thread 42538848

Do you apply the Harkness test to ponies?

>>42538848 (OP)
well yeah, what am I, a zoophile?

>>42538848 (OP)
There is nothing morally wrong with living life by the harkness test. Our ancestor's did and that, among genocide, is why our neighbours no longer exist.

I am teratophile so I don't give a shit about Harkness test. I used to beat my meat to xenonorphs and to this day I hope there is some talented artist who draws sexy Chrysalis in the most monstrous insectoid eldritch way.

>>42538848 (OP)
Okay, what if the alien creature wants to fuck, but it cannot speak a human language, but an alien language, which is not imagined anthropocentric, where something like agreeing and disagreeing to something has the same tone as when a human agrees or disagrees to something? No matter the language, you still know if somehuman agrees or disagrees to something based on facial expression, body language, and tone, but what if the alien really wants to fuck me, but his behaviour is the opposite of what I would expect someone wanting to fuck be like for a human? And assuming that John Harkness very likely meant legal sexual maturity with the third point - what if the legal sexual maturity of the alien society is like 6 years old?

Fun fact: Harkness did not follow the Harkness Test. Very silly remnant of that era of the internet.

>>42538848 (OP)
No. Eat shit moralfaggot.

>>42538848 (OP)
You don't need the Harkness test in Equestria.

It's simple: Look for hearts in their eyes.
If they have little hearts (usually pink) floating around in their pupils, everything's okay.

>>42538915
I ain't judging but how did you find out that they give you a hard-on?

>>42538925
That's a lot of words just to say that you want to fuck fillies, pedokraut.

>>42538973
And?????????? Ponies have anthropocentric body language, facial expressions, and even speak human languages. Also, their legal sexual maturity is 70% safe when they get their cutie mark and my post is nothing about that - but about completely alien creatures that don't agree by smiling or nodding their head, but show sexual interest by tossing their stomach organ out to you and sharing food with you that way.

>>42538848 (OP)
>only applies to fictional creatures
wew, I'm in the clear

>>42538997
>when they get their cutie mark
There's absolutely zero evidence suggesting this.

>>42538848 (OP)
Fucking an imaginary creature weather its able to consent or not is just always going to be bestiality, making up that it can magically consent to you is the same 1000yo loli argument, even if it can consent you are fucking something with with animal bits thus zoophilic in nature

That said being attracted to a child in any shape or form is inherently more evil and vile, death to all pedophile foal/cub/lolicons

>>42538997
>And??????????
I never said that I judge you on that front.

>>42539005
>barbieflag
Opinion discarded, kill yourself.

>>42538951
I can't remember honestly. My earliest memory is jacking off on early crude 3d porn of xenomorph queen deepthroating a cock with her inner set jaws. Or maybe it was series of humanization artworks.
but I do remember I stumbled upon furry porn earlier.

>>42538941
>Cutiemark
Get this hag off the board. I only fuck pure mares.

>>42538848 (OP)
>unironically worrying about fucking FICTIONAL CREATURES
No, I don't, because I'm not mentally ill, thanks.

>>42539093
Lots of fags need permission to fantasize
But I guess the test is useful if you want to know how socially ruinous it would be to have your lusts attached to your name

No because its already done, retard. All of the mane 6 are adults and can talk and so are 90% of the cast.

>>42538848 (OP)
>Not posting the pony version...
What are you, some sort of irredeemable faggot?

>>42538931
How so? Did he ever commit zoophilia? That would be based.

>>42539994
Make one with anon filly but she is reeeing in both panels

>>42541185
It would be funnier if she said something like:
>Uuh...yeah, sure! I'm totally an adult and stuff.
And to the second question she stammers, mixes up her lines, and otherwise spills her spaghetti.
(And it still has a green check-mark.)

>>42541185
>flaggot with worst possible take
This isn't coincidence. Every post with a flag attached to it is like this.

>>42538848 (OP)
I dont give a shit about your consent