i enjoy it
I don't know what this is
Which one tops though
>>150410916me
>>150410905 junoandmaxx
>>150410896Bad Guys 3 just leaked ?
>>150410905an adult youtube cartoon targeted towards kids
>>150410896Remove all characters expect the cat in booty shorts and I'll watch it.
>>150410896Anon it’s just coombait with unfunny Reddit humor painted on top of it>>150410970Why the fuck do people always do that shit? Fags like Vannamelon and that shitty comics dub channel all have blatant gooner bait in their thumbnails and shit and audiences full of 12 year olds, they’re clearly gearing themselves towards horny teens, seems pretty sus to me.
>>150410896Boy kisser?
>>150411310Normally I wouldn’t agree but you’re right on this one
>>150411310 this is what happens when you have an entire generation raised by soccer moms given participation trophies to become these fake conservatives with one hand down their pants jacking it and the other hand waving a finger at everyone else who watches something that isn't made for babies>Oh well someone think of the children
>>150411310>Hello, me spampost image and shit rants everytime me seeks bad cartoons.Turning you into a banana right now. OP too for posting furry porn bait.
>>150411310>Why the fuck do people always do that shit?You get demonetized if it's outright made for kids, but if you make it for "adults" you get a dollar per thousand views
>>150412189booooo
furslop
>>150411366Yes. IIRC the artist went crazy and disowned it, so it's no surprise someone else is using it.
>>150412238>>150413311You guys are just super jelly as someone being successful
>>150413383It's quite weird that furries just steal characters all the time.
>>150413495If an oc I made gets good art then fine by me
>>150410896What is the name of this?
>>150413537See >>150410942.https://e621.net/posts?tags=junoandmaxx
>>150410896The joke is gay furry porn... and I liked it.
>>150410970>>150412238>Look up one short>"Notice">"Age-restricted video (based on Community Guidelines)"Hmmmm, if it's age restricted, I guess it's not for kids. Same with Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss.
>>150414089Children know their way around those restrictions. It's why YT tried to implement verifications and AI sniffers.
>>150414287Oh my God were you ever a kid, you're acting is like if a kid sees a boob he's going to explode. Even boomers had Playboys
>>150414287>Children know their way around those restrictions.Yeah, and? Creators aren't responsible for people who knowingly and willingly ignore their warnings and restrictions.
>>150414454I'm normally one to laugh at prudes but the animated shorts are extremely sexual. I honestly thought I was watching porn animations from e621 but with the actual sex clipped out.
>>150414454>>150414534>>150414580Bot posts? Or are you all just stupid?
>>150414597I'm >>150414534Explain how I'm wrong.
>>150414597You're stupid for thinking the internet should cater to kids.
>>150410896the blue one looks like he service tops
>>150414750blue werewolf boyfriend of catwhite officers boykisser wants to be pounded by dogdog is in the army
>>150414597eat tacos
>>150414613You are not wrong but it's irrelevant. You obviously responded to >>150414287 without following the conversation. It's not doing a "think of the children!", it's simply pointing out that they have no trouble viewing stuff like Helluva Boss or the thing in the OP, so it's not crazy to think that makers of "restricted" content consider them part of the audience.>>150414691I didn't say that at all. You are angry at your own stupidity.>>150415644I will and you'll still be stupid.This is what happens when you don't follow the replies, idiots.
>>150416087>You are not wrong but it's irrelevant.Oh no, it's quite relevant.>You obviously responded to 150414287 without following the conversation. I am also >>150414089 so I think I was "following the conversation" quite well. >It's not doing a "think of the children!", it's simply pointing out that they have no trouble viewing stuff like Helluva Boss or the thing in the OP, so it's not crazy to think that makers of "restricted" content consider them part of the audience.Have they said so? Directly, anywhere? Why would children be watching it, anyway? And, again... if it's age restricted or has a non-kid friendly rating, it's not meant for kids.
>>150410896
>>150416154>Why would children be watching it, anyway?Why wouldn't they? Like >>150414454 said, there were boys with dirty mags back in the day. Heck, I was one of those.Cartoons, games, movies, magazines... if others say the stuff is good, they'll find a way to see it.>if it's age restricted or has a non-kid friendly rating, it's not meant for kidsPutting a Blue's Clues DVD in the XXX section of a store doesn't magically make it a show for adults. As mentioned before, the restriction is just there to keep the videos monetized, though it also helps to attract edgy children by making them believe they are "mature" for watching it.Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you seriously this disconnected from reality?
>>150416442>Why wouldn't they? Like 150414454 said, there were boys with dirty mags back in the day. >Heck, I was one of those.Ah, so you knowingly and willingly disregarded all attempts at keeping such material away from vulnerable children. Now, whose fault is it that you got the dirty mags? Because I'm sure the editors made sure to follow every procedure to keep them adult only. >As mentioned before, the restriction is just there to keep the videos monetized, though it also helps to attract edgy children by making them believe they are "mature" for watching it.Okay. So, why is that the fault, or the problem, of the people making the product? It should be the parents' responsibility to protect their children's innocence, and the responsibility of the child to say no to materials that aren't suited for them. If either of them break the social contract, the makers of the product are still not to blame.
>>150416442>Cartoons, games, movies, magazines... if others say the stuff is good, they'll find a way to see it.Yeah, but it still usually took some kind effort on the kids' part. Not wanting adult media to be impossible to access solely for the sake of children is one thing, but that doesn't mean overtly sexual content should be easy enough to find that a slop algorithm might throw it in their faces.Besides, half of the fun at looking at porn when you're underage is BECAUSE you're not supposed to be doing it. Why ruin that for the kids?
>>150410939No, it's me topping your mother
>>150416564>>150416606You are definitely a bot or something equally subhuman.
>>150416900Can't accept personal responsibility. Can't accept being told his opinion is terrible in multiple ways. I accept your concession. If you have kids, make sure to use parental blockers on your devices at home. That's what they're there for!
>>150410896The Paw Patrol reboot no one asked for...
>>150410896Why?
