/meta/ - Meta

What rule did it break?

>>63319
2

>>63320
OP never said he wanted to, had, or will ever have sexual relations with preteen succubi

Same reason there's still a gay thread up on lounge and a fetish thread on wiz. I find it funny that a thread that is very obviously straddling rule 2 is allowed. Stating your sexual preferences is implicitly saying what you desire to fuck, which should be considered a violation. Just saying something like "oh it is so easy for fags to acquire sex so if anything that makes them the truest wiz volcels for abstaining" doesn't change the fact that it is still admitting that they desire sex from a certain demographic. And we can see that the reason the thread was even deleted was because allegedly the person who made it was also concern-trolling about it on meta.

I don't think discussing your maladaptive sexuality is unwizardly, but that guy was just a false flagger

>>63322
Pedophiles are just "super" straight.

>>63332
I mean, I'm not saying that I think heterosexual discussion should be permitted either. In any case, I disagree. It's distinct from and complementary to both heterosexuality and homosexuality.