And don't tell me, the world has become dimmer. And there is probably no similar one, at least I did not go

lol yup i got banned lololololololol

Hell knows. Ok the motherless was a lot of stuff from paid sites, that can be a reason.

But I've noticed also that snuff/guro went to some weird place since like last 10 years.
Once it was just sexual fantasy of death and gore, now nearly everything is close to loli.

I got the point that we are breaking all the barriers but guys here are fantasying about snuffying 5yo. Wtf

>>19616

> Once it was just sexual fantasy of death and gore, now nearly everything is close to loli.
... guys here are fantasying about snuffying 5yo. Wtf
Very probably there is a need for "toying" with younger partners which was quite common in former times and is suppressed for more than half a century now. Started by religious fanatics in the USA the witchhunt spreads all over the world. Don't get me wrong, in RL minors are to be protected ‒ and not just them. But it's not a matter of age, it's a matter of consent. Ok, irrevocable decisions should be really made only while fully informed and for logical reasons under a certain kind of supervision. However, instead of being made of color or at least a lot of shades of grey the world is turned in only black and white ‒ with white more and more removed by these morally maniacs.

The worst thing is still to come. After establishing the CP mass hysteria in our heads it is used as the reason to control everything and everybody. Orwell and Huxley send their regards.

adore a minor is a one thing, understandable. even in India\Pakistan they still marrying 8yo girls in 2026. in Thailand 10% of all pregnant young girls are below 15yo,
but wanting to snuff a minor is fucked up.

>>19723

> adore a minor is a one thing, understandable.
Agreed. But when it comes to (sexual) interaction where do you draw the line ‒ and why?

> ... but wanting to snuff a minor is fucked up.
It is for sure perverse to want to kill anybody. But is there really a difference between adult and minor? And ‒ if yes ‒ why?

Meanwhile, the website is back!! :D

>>19726
Hardly a cause for celebration. I just lost loads of self harm favourites in my collection.

>>19726
Send link? Idk why I can’t find the site I thought it was taken down for good

>>19728
https://motherless.com/term/ai

for those who don't know they have biggest AI nsfw section, accessible via this link.

>>19730
Thanks so much, but now eye checking got banned and im super dissapointed, does anyone know alt sites about eye checks?

AND NECRO GOT BANNED from Motherless??? Wtf

>>19740
necro, rape, abuse etc words are only disabled in search, you have to find groups\or uploaders with this subject and then inside all content is present.

>>19726
Some of the videos I uploaded there are gone, even one of them was a non-guro version.

>>19780
Yup. It's gonna be a very different place going forward. >>19781

>>19780

>>19790 Not good.

And more. Gone.

They're dropping like fly's now. Gone.

may be because "CNN investigation" was about "sleeping women", and hanged\strangled women is variation of that.

>>19725
Talking about a fiction, the line is where you can find visible attractive attributes of any kind. Skinny or fat, curvy or thin, doesn't matter at all. But as far as you can see clearly a kid with no such attributes at all, that's fucked up and you should see a doctor asap. Sexually, gore, whatever kind, gooninig to undeveloped at any piece is the very last undefendable line for sure.

>>19819
Thank you, sir!
Please, tell us your real name so that we can nominate you for the morally superior person of the year.
We need more good and sane people like you here to teach everyone a lesson -- actually that's why this platform exits:
To inform normal people who occasionally enjoy snuffing a 18+ girl for pleasure (which is absolutely alright and no reason to see a doctor asap) about all this sick bastards out there ...

>>19819
> that's fucked up and you should see a doctor asap.

Do you realize how stupid that advice is for someone to take? How well do you imagine it goes for someone who tells a doctor, "Gosh, doc, I have these sexual desires for kids. What should I do?"

Of course, I'm sure you don't care for how it goes for the person who might do this. You're thinking that even just the thought of such things makes someone such a terrible person and such a supposed enormous danger that they should throw their life away on the altar of your disgust, huh?

>>19834
Exactly. Depends on country, but there is an medical confidentiality and pedophilia itself is an WHO recognized disorder that doesn't make you criminal, could be treated by psychotherapy and unharming medicines used in psychiatrics. And it all is kept in full confidentiality.
So treat it however want, just remember there is such a way too.

>>19819

Thank you for your answer, but I'm afraid it is incomplete. You referred to visible attractive attributes of any kind. Skinny or fat and curvy or thin (which is the same, only in other words) fall within this category, that's for sure. But they aren't "all kinds". There are also size, skin condition, proportions and haircolor ‒ to name only a few more. Kids have the same haircolors as grownups, can be skinny or curvy and have mostly flawless skin ‒ and a lot more of other visible attributes that can attract someone.
So even if I accept your very blurry drawn line, you did not tell me the most important "Why". Up to now you're giving us just an example of bigotry at its best. It's the same like censoring genitals at a bloody slasher picture ‒ only multiple times worse.

​

>>19821

When I started to read your post I thought at the first moment: "Oh no, another pharisee." But then you gave me a good laugh and I want to thank you for this. :D

​

>>19834

> they should throw their life away on the altar of your disgust
But only as long as you don't have any "visible attractive attributes of any kind" which would identify you as a kid. ;)=)

Are there any kids around here? Don't be shy. Come to me. Let's play a little bit ‒ may be chef and piglet. 8)

​

>>19842

> pedophilia itself is an WHO recognized disorder
Sorry, but that's bull... ‒ sorry ‒ nonsense. You're right, it is recognized as disorder, but this classification is bull... ‒ err ‒ only a fig leaf. Would you say homosexuality is a mental disorder?
Remember:
< The World Health Organization's ICD-9 (1977) listed homosexuality as a mental illness; it was removed from the ICD-10, endorsed by the Forty-third World Health Assembly on 17 May 1990. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) [ICD: International Classification of Diseases]
Its "career" as disorder began in the late 19th century with the scientific study of homosexuality by Richard von Krafft-Ebing.
< Krafft-Ebing was a leading psychiatrist of his day and his research initially positioned same sex attracted men and women as hereditarily burdened but not responsible for their innate "reversal" of sexual drive. Throughout his career, he supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality believing that homosexuals would be best served by medical treatment. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Krafft-Ebing)
Though Krafft-Ebing was wrong from todays point of view, he was helpful at his time.
Unfortunately every scientist who published and publishes a non-negative work about pedophilia faces immediate stoning. Nevertheless there are researches stating that pedophilia is not generally as harmful as we are told and that the in most cases the highly embarrassing interrogations do the most harm, more than everything else. Until anything changes it's a doubtful option to hide behind that fig leaf.

Having said this, I think we really need a Sidney Roebuck. As a followup of her successful campaign there would be some more liberations of other kinds. :)=)

yeah, seems like motherless now actually deleting dead\necro content not just search block.

>>19940
Yup, they're cleaning house.

Is the site going to still be there? Sure.

Is it going to be something people around these parts still give a shit about once they done with this scouring? Nope.

>>19616
Too many pedos on guro sites. I'm not a pedo. I don't want to read about folks doing away with tweens and 5 year olds.

>>20875
Then don't. It's not hard to ignore fictional content. Unless you're a retard.

Here is an update about motherless,
https://factually.co/fact-checks/entertainment/motherless-com-website-overview-f19f5b

apparently moral fags have succeeded in taking it down, they moved to a new domain https://motherless.xxx