I can't be bridled, of course

Cue my great surprise and shock. See the shock? This is my shocked face. How shocking.



From the chat that tipped me to this:

[12:07 AM] Uxxxx: and what store is this?
[12:09 AM] Kxxxxx: A store that sells strippable mod outfits. Xtra Ordinari
[12:13 AM] Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Mod is not verified, only claimed on market
[12:20 AM] Uxxxx: bit annoying that they don't seem to understand the difference between stylized and "child"
[12:27 AM] Bxxxxx: Yeah, and I bet they don't understand the difference between 'child avatar' and 'petite adult' either
[12:29 AM] Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Prolly not
[12:29 AM] Uxxxx: prol- what [Xxxxx] said
[12:29 AM] Kxxxxx: They were likely mod, at least, the outfit the model was wearing one
[02:11 AM] Yxxxxx: Idiots. Absolute imbeciles. But also If those are supposed to be examples up there, wouldn't they literally be putting the exact thing they're claiming to be cp up as pictures in their store? Conflicted though because it sounds like they make things well, just their take on this issue is complete bollocks.

That's a great point.

But also, note the text of the ban: "underage", "Lolita-like", "baby-faced", "anime", "furry" characters, then only the qualifiers for "kid" or "teenlike" figures, dressed to "stimulate and tease in a sexual way".

And as far as the picture that announces this ban? To me, only the last avatar would come anywhere close to 'underage', and then the full-body latex would tell me otherwise. I just don't get it.