>>938226857
>people don't treat cartoons like they treat real people when it comes to relationships and sexual engagements.
And literally NO ONE is arguing otherwise, you seem not to understand that there's a difference between comparing the effects different stimuli have in someone and comparing the actions that someone will have. Literally NO ONE but you is equating real people to fictional people, that's why NO ONE is considering loli porn and irl child porn to be equal in moral standing, because clearly "acting" on a drawing and acting on a person are different. What I (and anyone who's not a coping retard) am claiming is that the sexual desire that precedes such action is rooted on an attraction to similar impulses, even if the actions taken afterwards are completely different.

See this pic? This isn't a woman, these are just beams of light being shot to your eyes. Many people will find it attractive and even feel aroused for it, even if it isn't a flesh and blood person they are interacting with. And you know why? Because in the end reality matters little to sexual desire, what matters is how an impulse, any impulse, gets processed by you. You can feel sexual desire for literal images you conjure in your own mind while reading erotica or even while dreaming or just daydream fantasizing, reality only affects the actions you take, not the desires you have, those are ingrained in your mind and are not dependent of things existing in the actual world.