>>513813068
I'm saying that the moment you stop using a hard measurable metric like age and start judging based on more arbitrary traits that are subject to the eye of the beholder, you set yourself down a slippery slope towards effectively banning an extremely wide range of expressions. Which is what has happened with Steam, as well as Sony and Nintendo as they increasingly scrutinize anime-style erotic fanservice and expressions, and SB20 is set to code such a thing into law in Texas. Reminder that Australia routinely bans anime and Japanese games and recently banned a fucking Hunter x Hunter game. Why would we want to be more like them?

>>718794127
No.

>>718308313
Spergery over anime girls being lower than the magic California number. Sometimes it isn't even the number itself, but just the fact that they aren't wrinkled up, manjawed roasties.

>>717962074
Flat anime girls are the opposite of woke. Woke platforms hate them with a burning passion.

>>717497096
>Steam doesn't have a headshape of consent policy

>>717274151
Petite women became unsafe horny.

>716062272
>I don't support censorship, but I think Valve/Steam should ban anything that trips some roastie's sense of "pedophilia" and in the process sink the developers as being banned from Steam is equivalent to a death sentence for PC games (and you know this)
Pic related is what you support. Neptunia, Gal*Gun, Senran Kagura, Dungeon Travelers, all of it would be or has been banned from Steam despite being PG games because chucklefucks like you think they "normalize pedophilia" You are literally no different from these feminist orgs arguing sexualizing women perpetuate some "rape culture". The dev in this pic who had his game banned said it utterly dashed all his dreams of making it as an indie VN developer. This is what you support; a witch hunt against all otaku culture and derived works. You're pure scum and nothing but bad faith. I have seen this play out for years now and I know exactly what you're really arguing for. You can't fool me.

>>716034042
Not enough for the tards in charge of this shit, it's "do they LOOK underage (by my roastie standards)" now.

>>715617826
That's already happening too.

>>714351647
>pay $100
>"sorry, your anime girl is below the height/head shape/personality/outfit of consent, therefore you and your audience are PEDOPHILES and your game is permabanned"
>money stolen
Yes, it is.

>>714316873
>porn games
not really. they've rejected god knows how many despite complying with the law. even non-porn games. they really hate anime-style games for some reason

>>714051267
Doesn't help, they will literally ban your game if your character looks too cute and petite, actual age notwithstanding.

>>714048863
Not even just that, Valve has banned games just for having adult characters that "look underage", and even Nintendo is following suit. They won't just demand an age change, they'll demand actual changes to the designs. At that point it's clear they don't have any ground to stand on but pure hatred of moe aesthetics.

>>713939191
Any anime girl with a flat chest or petite frame (regardless of stated age) or in a school setting = "underage" to Valve = the game is somehow illegal despite two decades of precedent otherwise (and hosting plenty of other "taboo" content including simulated bestiality). They've even banned games sold at WalMart or on the fucking Google Play store.

>>529181631
Nah, flats and petites are way, way more oppressed these days. If Stellar Blade had an attractive flattie or God forbid a petite or loli, it would have been far more censored if it was even allowed to release at all.

>>713549526
Steam unironically believes it, though.

>>713443723
Refusing to take stated character ages in-universe at face value is a path to effectively banning most petite body types and possibly even cutesy/moe art styles. Because if it's not about whether or not the character is actually underage, then it's about if the character LOOKS "underage" and we know lots of aging millennial/zoomer women have strong opinions on that.

>>712968903
Because we've got retards who will push to mark any anime girl without obvious hag features like wrinkles and moles or god forbid a flat chest as pandering to pedophiles and thus verboten, because anime and moe styles in particular emphasize neotenous features. It's a path to effectively banning petite body types ala Australia, and it must be called out for what it is. Why are you so hellbent on banning Nekopara of all things? Look at the fucking Denpasoft listing which shows some of the CGs from the game including the H ones? It's some of the most vanilla H you could find in an eroge, and yet I'm supposed to believe that it's worse than literal bear fucking and gangbang guro shit just because some of the girls are flat? YOU people are the dishonest ones!

>>712775952
"look young"
It's a work of fiction; if the author says the character is 19, who are you to contest them on their own work? At that point, you're not banning on any legal basis, you're literally banning art styles and body types.
>but it's a grey area
No such thing, it's either illegal or it isn't, and we've had two decades of Japanese media being sold in the US to say it isn't no matter what Valve says.

>>712585589
That is, IF your game can get on Steam, which if it's Japanese or Japanese-style, it probably can't.