i could do a little piece on my thoughts regarding actual pedophiles and their relation to lolicon if you want, but i think that's pointless and would simply go through stuff i've said before, which i like to do whenever i'm in the mood for it, but eh.
i'd find it interdasting.
Well, then I'll do a short little piece then.
Generally, from what available research regarding lolicon media and its effects on society, we know that lolicon doesn't correlate with real world sex crime, and if there's any correlation to be made with that data is available, it is that lolicon decreases child rape rates.
That suggests that there may be a population of pedophiles who are also attracted to lolicon.
Though I'm not concerned about such people.
If there are people whose urges are allowed to be dealt with in a healthy manner without harm to another person, then as far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less; there is no immorality in letting that person be, because they have not hurt anyone.
It's only when suffering is inflicted that determines immorality, or the desire of inflicting suffering but was unable to because it was prevented.
There is the issue of pedophiles using real children as reference for their drawings, but trying to identify those drawings if they're stylized to anime is difficult unless the artist admits it or someone finds a connection and can firmly prove it's real, and so on.
To completely avoid it entirely, you would need to stop looking at the content entirely.
But I think I would treat it like this:
Child-exploiting rapists can be anyone and anywhere. But you know that most people are not those kinds of people.
When they're found out, many of them are generally people you don't know; strangers.
But maybe it turns out that one of those people was apart of your high school band.
You didn't know they were one, but you were friends with them.
Now, CSEM material is immoral because an actual child was abused in its creation, drawings not except.
But I'd argue that lolicon material is different enough to warrant at minimum a discussion regarding it.
Simply put, lolicon is stylized cartoons, and no one truly sees them as real humans, but cartoons.
You could never know if one of those characters was inspired or referenced by a real human unless the creator outright says so or someone notices a provable connection.
CSEM is conventionally known to be actual recordings and photos of real abused children, and it cannot be easily lied about that such content obviously contains child abuse, but lolicon cannot be immediately recognizable if a piece was made abusing a real child or not.
In this case, I think it would be foolish to punish anyone for getting off to such a drawing.
Now, when you find out your friend is a pedophile, your first instinct would likely be to stop being friends with them, for they have abused a child.
In the same essence, just delete the drawing and stay away from the artist.
Though, I'm reminded that this is where the dumb argument of "At what point is it fictional and real?" comes from that Antis like to use to claim that all lolis are actually literally real tangible children, and we're all pedophiles for getting off to it.
I can apply it to everything else, including fictional violence, such as in video games (which often likes to depict photorealistic humans), and "at what point is it fictional and real?" and how such content could have been inspired by actual murder scenes of videos of murder, and that people who enjoy that are freaks who had fun seeing such real people suffer and die.
So that says absolutely fucking nothing.
You can't determine the morality of a person because they're unable to know something that can't be easily known, first and foremost.
But also, there is a clear line between fiction and reality, but in every case I've seen, people in these fights use it to fearmonger that any drawing can be of a real kid, and if you don't fall for it, you don't give a damn about kids or are a child raping scumbag, making it hard to actually think of anything regarding it.
There's also some open pedophile lolicons who think all lolicons are like them and are also attracted to real children, but are just cowards.
I say this is stupid; Don't assume everyone else is the same as you.
Of course, I did say earlier that there might be some pedophiles who are using lolicon as a healthy release mechanism such that they won't offend.
Thing is, if it's such that they do not want to harm anyone and be moral people, then they are not the same.
Those open pedophile lolicons typically try to openly advocate for child consent, lowering age of consent, and so on.
They make the group look bad because they call themselves lolicons, but that's about it.
They don't determine the morality of an entire group; just themselves. Should be obvious, but people will ignore it for political reasons.
There are pedophiles who are purely attracted to real children and get real pissy about lolicons, AKA Antis.
Not sure what to say about them other than that they're genuinely the most fucking annoying people on this planet, but hey, their very existence proves that anyone who bitches about how fiction somehow determines the morality of a person are monsters hiding something in their closet, no fucking exceptions.
I'm still waiting for a couple of Brits to be outed for fucking a child. I know one hid the fact he knew a person who raped a kid.
I said earlier that there may be a population of pedophiles that are attracted to lolicon, and that I didn't care so long as they simply don't commit a moral crime.
That isn't to say a majority of actual pedophiles in the lolicon community are good people, or a minority, or any specific percent.
Simply put, lolicon media was correlated with a decrease in sex crimes during the lolicon boom. Therefore, I can assume that if there are pedophiles attracted to lolicon, there will exist some who will not offend, which I assume is due to using lolicon to healthily deal with such urges.
There's no specific amount and types of pedophiles that I can list off of the top of my head that are in the lolicon community and/or have gotten involved with it, because they tend to not openly admit they're pedophiles.
There also are pedophiles who use lolicon media to groom kids, but again, it has been said numerous times that you don't blame the tool, but the person who misuses it.
That being said, I honestly have never heard of it beyond theoreticals used against lolicon media and lolicons.
I've heard some Antis claim that they were groomed using those materials, but honestly, considering how much they like to spread bullshit, I'm skeptical at best.
Call me an asshole for calling someone's potential trauma fake and bullshit if you want, but I'd treat their trauma as real to be a real asshole.
Victims of child rape are now privy to the concept of sexualizing children because of their experience, and, if they can't find a proper way to deal with their trauma, are likely to become pedophiles themselves, assaulting kids, because they can't escape their trauma of being a sexualized kid used as a tool for someone's sexual pleasure.
Unfortunately, I don't consider being unstable on the internet whining about how people are fucked up because fiction is fucked up, and obsessing over pieces of fiction to the point you want to defend fictional characters, a proper healthy way of dealing with or overcoming trauma.
I can't come up with other things off of the top of my head, so yeah.
This is more of what I've seen regarding how pedophiles have interacted with lolicons, or how they interact as lolicons.
I don't think it's interesting or worthwhile, since it's just what we've seen already.
But yeah. That's about it. Unless you wanted me to answer a specific question of sort, which I did assume you wanted me to answer something regarding the "based on real person" drawing stuff, which I tried to answer most things about it in that one part.