i want to take care of a boymoder like picreli am a straight cis manwhat do you think of this?
>>41736544Stephanie Hawkings ah boymoder
>>41736544>>41736544>>41736544
>>41736544i wish someone take care of me like if i was picrel
i didnt know kid cudi's niece was a chaser
>>41736751it cracks me the fuck up that she's actually kid cudi's niece like i just thought it was a joke before
>>41736544You’re a sick fetishist who wants power and control over a vulnerable person, huge red flag for pedophillia or other forms of abuse
>>41736544all boymoders should receive lobotomies so that they become like this
That is not the worst powerchair I have ever seen drawn, for the level of effort you're putting in. good luck being a devotee, I guess
>>41738715why?i just want to take care of a boymoder and love her
What the fuck. That's disturbing.
that's kinda creepy.
>>41739621>>41739627why? i want to love her and take care of her
>>41739620You want a mentally disabled person who can’t talk back, refuse consent or tell others about the abuse you inflict on them behind closed doors. You want total control and power over a captive, helpless, non-resisting person Being truly motivated to altruistically “care for” someone does not have a sexually fetishistic element, which is inherently antithetical to selflessly caring for someone
>>41739736>mentally disabled person who can’t talk back, refuse consent or tell others about the abuse you inflicwhen did i say that?
>>41739835The person in your OP picture has “brain worms” (which you characterise yourself as gaslighting them about, huge predator red flag) and is unable to verbally communicate or physically move properly You are a dangerous fetishist who should never be left alone around vulnerable or disabled peopleThe fact that you sexually fetishize someone’s disability or dependence is extremely sick and dehumanising
>>41740040what? when did i say i fetishize her? im pretty sure she just has autism. i just want to take care of a disabled boymoder like in picrel>>41739620. keep seething you femcel
>>41740040>which you characterise yourself as gaslighting them about, huge predator red flagSaying that brainworms aren't real is gaslighting and a huge predator red flag?Do you even know what the term "brainworms" refers to on this board?
Sadistic lolcow
>>41740051>what? when did i fetishize her?When you said “pic rel” in the OP. Now you’re frantically back-pedalling because you realise how sick it is >“no it’s actually NOT sick because I only get off on PHYSICAL disabilities!”Being sexually aroused by the utterly tragic spectacle of someone living as a paraplegic because you enjoy the power dynamic of total control and dependence you have over them is no less sick. Just admit what you are, there would at least be some dignity in that.
>>41736544what's wrong with her :(?
>>41740088nta but if i ever find you imma strangle you and i dont mean in a "homoerotic" way either you failed male dyke.
>>41740088thank you for calling out this SICKO
>>41740175i think she has autism
>>41736544Dont listen to the fetishits projecting themselves onto you OP. Its probably them being fucked over by society so when they hear about a cis guy its automatically another fetish. Theyre lashing out. Pathetic loser behavior if you ask me.
>>41740225yes i just want to care for one and love her and be together
>>41736544i want them to be stressed and anxious and need cuddling and toys to calm down
>>41740195You never have and never will pose a physical threat to any adult aged person. Nobody has ever feared you except children, as they should.
>>41740405As you rape them and make sure they can’t tell anybody
>>41740486who tf draws this stuff man
>>41740202>>41740225I asked grok about it. My question was is sexual arousal at the thought of “caring” for a mentally and physically disabled person healthy or a red flagHere is the answer from Grok:>This is a major red flag, and in most cases, it’s neither healthy nor ethically defensible.Sexual arousal that is specifically tied to someone’s mental or physical disability—especially when the fantasy centers on that person being helpless, non-consenting, or permanently dependent on the aroused person for basic care—almost always falls into a recognized paraphilia called caregiver fetishism or, more broadly, dependency-related paraphilias. When the core turn-on is the power imbalance created by the disability itself (and not just “caring for someone” in a mutual, consensual dynamic), it frequently overlaps with predatory behavior patterns.Key reasons this is concerning:Consent issues: Many severe mental or physical disabilities impair the ability to give ongoing, enthusiastic, informed consent. Fantasizing about sexual access to someone who literally cannot say no (or cannot understand what’s happening) is extremely close to fantasizing about rape or abuse.>Exploitation of vulnerability: People with significant disabilities are already one of the most abused and sexually assaulted demographics. A fetish that requires a real disabled person to exist in a state of perpetual dependency in order for the arousal to work is inherently exploitative.Dehumanization: When the disability itself is the fetishized trait (“I’m turned on because they’re intellectually disabled/in a wheelchair/can’t speak,” etc.), the person ceases to be seen as a full human being and becomes an object that exists to fulfill the fantasy.>>41740405You are a fucking freak
>>41740525Cont:>Mental health professionals (especially those who treat paraphilic disorders) generally consider fixation on non-consenting or highly vulnerable populations a serious risk factor, not a harmless kink. If the person is acting on these fantasies (volunteering as a caregiver, seeking disabled partners while concealing the fetish, etc.), it’s outright dangerous.>Bottom line: This specific arousal pattern is a red flag—often a bright, flaming one. It’s not automatically proof someone will offend, but it is a strong indicator that professional help (sex-positive, kink-aware therapy) is needed before they get anywhere near a vulnerable person.
>>41740507Totally mentally healthy people who are much more “normal” and safe than heteronormative chuds who reproduce naturally, have self esteem and love their families
>>41740195>>41740225“How dare you not support something that is morally the same as rape? I will be violent towards you”Yeah sounds like society should definitely accept trannies, you guys are the bee’s knees
>>41736544>>41738762giwtwm
>>41740490I never asked to be feared so thats a plus. And whose children? The ones you groomed? hahaha>>41742032I will be violent towards you because it is morally reprehensible what you have done. Have you never heard the phrase punch a nazi? Why do you think resorting to violence is warranted in that occasion? Or better yet hate speech is violence? And I have judged your words to meet the criteria. You will be dealt with appropriately. >>41740525Nice strawman. kys
>>41743045No. Caregiver fetishisism is a recognised dangerous paraphilia >>41740525
>>41743086Who has the fetish? Is it you you gigantic faggot?
>>41743045>calls it a straw man argument against your position>can’t actually posit a steel man argument supporting your position
>>41743095OP/you. You know, the thing you just became violently and irrationally angry in defense of? Stop gaslighting faggot, it doesn’t work on people with a higher IQ than you
>>41743097Im not OP. Dumbass.Why would i steelman it? Do you even know what that means you quasi-illiterate buffoon? You steelman it and if its wrong then all the weaker arguments including your strawman would make it immoral. Give OP your number. He might be "sexually attracted" to you and not "romantic" because he has a "fetish" for retards. >>41743113Anger is a virtue when its directed at the morally bankrupt and wicked.
>>41743163Why is caregiver fetishism valid and not a depraved, predatory paraphilia based on a power imbalance and lack of consent
>>41743163is pedophila wrong? (watch this, everyone)
I would never do this but imagine beating a boymoder so hard they become retarded and then you end uo becoming their caretaker.
>>41743194OP: can i love the mentally and physically disabled?you: the most heinous, depraved take imaginable
>>41743232It’s not “love”, they specifically said they get sexual arousal from it and have a specific sexual preference for that type of person. Stop gaslighting, you aren’t high IQ enough to pull it off
>>41743211At this point youre trolling. How is an adult with mental and physical disabilities a child? I would then assert that they are capable of finding love maybe even true love as is the right of any human (i wont even qualify because im baiting you now) But I would expect you to say then they can only fall in love with their kind or members of the community having similar or the same disabilities. Is this right? Or do they not have the capacity for love?
>>41743262>>41736544>i want to take care of a boymoder like picreli am a straight cis manwhat do you think of this?I see what you mean. Its extremely male coded.Taking care = sexually enjoyCis = a person whose whole life revolves around sexual preferences/fetishesThat is what you believe isnt it?
>>41743296No, they can’t fall in love with someone who has a specific sexual fantasy of being with a disabled person. That is not organic love, that is a dehumanising fetish I like how you couldn’t say pedophilia is wrong. Thanks for proving my point
>>41743412A “boy moder” is a biological male who dresses as a male but “feels” transgender insight. You are not a straight man if you’re attracted to males who present as malesYour posts are gaslighting on every level and from every angle (another huge predator red flag)
>>41743427Why do i have to condemn something else irrelevant to the topic at hand?Oh wait ill just use your stupidity against you. I like how you basically didnt say they could find love and thus deserve no romance even if they yearn and long for it. Thanks for proving my point.
>>41736544Be wary of getting run over if you make her mad
>>41743443I never claimed to be OP dumbass. I dont find masculinity or males alluring except on myself. Thus you were saying, gaslighter?
>>41743449If disabled people find love it has to be from someone who loves them as a person, not someone who is seeking a disabled person because they’re sexually aroused by their disability. Stop playing dumb, it’s a pathetic tactic
>>41743577No. If a person can find someone else attractive for their race, hair color, physical appearance, intelligence, power, charisma, their figure, their body parts and then on top create a meaningful, deep relationship then it is no different than what you have stated. So you go into a relationship blind of the potential outcome of sex? You assume if i look for a particular person for sex that i also dont want to build a life with the other person, that I dont see the other person who has the same needs as me as a person, that they are generally like me in many respects. To hurt them would be hurting myself. kill yourself faggot.
>>41743659No this has already been resolved. You aren’t just “in love with someone who happens to be disabled”, you are sexually aroused by someone being powerless, defenseless and dependent on you. That is a predatory paraphilia
Fuck you for giving me a new fetish with this thread
>>41738762giwtwm
>There are people with disability fetishesIt's so sad that people are sexualized and objectified so often
thats cool I think it's okay to find abnormal people attractive and it might even benefit them
I don't want them to have to be mentally impaired or unable to give consent or forced to rely on me I just think there's something really sweet about taking care of them and it gives me like a boner from the heart
>>41740525>Here is the answer from GrokImagine proudly stating that you deferred to a hallucinating autocorrect lmao. Disability fetishes aren't any more disgusting than the basedjaks you hoard and spam everywhere
>>41746124Do you think we just want endless misery porn :/
>>41746191do they have to be in a wheelchair?
>>41736544that's kinda cute i'd feel bad fucking her brains out though, maybe its the somnophile in me but its cute that she has the appearance of being unable to consent idk im a massive cnc person
>>41746770Nah blind girls really do it for me too, desu though im selfish in that I prefer stuff where it doesn't increase the likelihood of me really outliving them, I still would for love though
>>41746873oh. okay
>>41746873autism reduces life expectancy by 10-30 years
>>41746961Sorry trying to be honest with myself, I feel like it'd be like going into something setting myself up for suffering especially because I feel like it's in my nature to like pairbond
>>41746989not the ones without a learning disability, they still live to like 75 on average
>>41747136^ /high functioning
