Then I Can't Show It Without My Blog Getting Flagged As NSFW Probably But In The Scene Where Eggsy Goes

Then I can't show it without my blog getting flagged as NSFW probably but in the scene where Eggsy goes back for her they show that Merlin can see everything on the screen, and it shows her rolling over onto her stomach with a zoom-in of her butt and Eggsy reaching for it.

So, yep.

Do you ever remember they established in canon that Eggsy Unwin is into anal because I just did

Hi! I saw your last post and I wanted to say something, but maybe I didn't get fully what you said:

What if someone uses that common tag just to make a critique about a certain media, especially or even if they are a fan of that media, are they wrong to use the main tag to post a critique or even a pet peeve? Or did you just meant by those people that harass others for not agreeing about their hate or something similar?

Critiquing media is different to just shitting on it because you don't like it.

For example, pointing out plot holes or poor writing is different to calling a piece of media childish or unimportant or belittling the people who do enjoy it regardless of said plot holes or poor writing.

I'm a fan of a lot of fandoms but I still have my contentions, disagreements and disappointments with the canon media, and part of fandom spaces is discussing those, but what I'm talking about is when people blatantly put personal negativity in areas where the main directive is positivity and enjoyment.

Anti: Comes onto my very obviously proship blog and makes a shitty comment about proshipping thinking I'll magically agree with them Me: Does Not Agree AntI: 😡😡 now I'm gonna go through all your posts and leave even more shitty comments and then block you and whine about it on my blog 😡😡

Sexual rpf of minors is csem in the same manner that drawn nsfw of real minors is csem; The writer is sexually exploiting this minor and their likeness. Regardless of the legality of it (because legality is subjective), it is in fact exploitative and unethical to make nsfw of a real child in any manner. Children are incapable of consenting to having fiction of themselves in sexual situations written, you are only able to do so non-consensually.

"Regardless of the legality of it—"

Nope.

I wanted to ask about something: does the rpf of real minors considered CSEM? If not, does that mean tha CSEM is just refering to pictures of real minors?

That would come down to the legal parameters of where the work was created and/or hosted but in general, no, because no actual minor is being exploited. The 'material' isn't real and there's no visual to try and present it as such.

(In the way that hyper-realistic artwork or photo manipulations would. Technically the material itself is fake but it was created with the aim of presenting it as real, or assumed as real.)

That, and, it can be incredibly difficult to actually manage all the different criteria of what makes it a crime or not, and what qualities tip it over into the league of actionable.

In some countries its technically illegal, but rarely if ever actually prosecuted or acted against. In much the same way that technically, a lot of fan-made merchandise is illegal, but the companies and trademarks only ever enact a strike when the gets 'too big.'

The gist is, barring very few exceptions, and fewer still actual prosecutions, no. It is not.

I'm about to poke the hornet's nest with a bat at mach 9 speed, but:

Pedophilia is used by antis as propaganda.