don't worry, the really dangerous people are not the ones who spread their shit behind the protection of a screen.
The day may come when we actually find a psychopath taking ''justice'' against ''pedophiles'', but it would be only 1 case out of thousands.
but that doesn't mean that these things are not dangerous and illegal and should not be allowed.
these people are nothing new, they are just a new form or extension of human behavior.
I would like to meet some of these children to see if they are as brave in real life.
it looks like you completely skipped the post
@NretsewThePerv lol
ok look I understand what you mean and I am not going to call you retarded because your way of thinking makes some sense in the first place, the problem is that it only makes sense if the subject we are talking about is like mathematics where 2+2 will always be 4, or the way you put it (which I have been asked many times before) is this ''lolis (and shouta) look like children in many ways (this is a fact and no one with at least 2 neurons could deny it), therefore the people who like them must have some relation to pedophilia (or by extension lolicon and pedophilia must have some relation)``, simplified ''loli/shouta=children therefore lolicon/shoutacon must have some relation to pedophilia```.
the problem is that this is a fallacious argument, since the human psyche and by extension psychology are not so simple nor so exact.
Here I will raise some points that can be analyzed to prove that lolicon/shoutacon does not necessarily have to be related to pedophilia and how likely or close this relationship is.
- first, nowadays we are seeing (and I think this is a fact for many people here but it is difficult to understand for an outsider) that many people are increasingly separating their attraction to characters (regardless of their age or appearance) from their attraction to real ppl, seeing more and more cases of people who have directly started to lose interest in real people, resulting in people (many) attracted to characters who directly do not give a damn about real life people, this can certainly be considered a pathology and therefore a paraphilia as it can affect the sexual well being and life of these people, but it should be approached in my opinion as an individual paraphilia, therefore attraction to characters of this type that have some similarity with children should be approached separately from pedophilia and, if necessary, treated as pathologically different. (to explain this in more detail let's go to the following points)
- Second, people feel a natural attraction to young people, and yes this includes children, whether people want to deny it or not, whether they like this argument or not, especially if they some sex appeal (which I will touch on in the next point), as proof of this there are hundreds of cases of child sex offenders who have not been directly diagnosed as pedophiles, the problem is whether this goes unnoticed by you or not, If you start thinking about it too much then you probably have a problem, because although people may feel some sexual attraction towards children sometime in their life, they will automatically detect it as "a bad target to reproduce", this added to the fact that children do not release many pheromones, this is because the brain can associate many things with sexual attraction but not become a paraphilic. For example many people find feet or stockings attractive... and this does not mean that they have a mental disorder, but people do not see it the same with pedophilia simply because of their instinct of ''protection'' (and maybe something else that I do not know).
Now add to this what @NretsewThePerv says, it is not so rare that a person feels attraction towards a character that look like a child but in the same way dislikes real children, this is because clearly your brain can differentiate between one and the other (this mainly unconsciously), and thus feel attracted to one or the other, imagine this as a person who likes women but not men, it is not just a moral issue, it is simply something more abstract and more subjective, that can not be applied objectively but in the same way you can not prove that if you like one you like the other also but if we know that it is possible, well I think the same principle applies to this of the lolis/shota. I don't think this is something as pathological as pedophilia as long as you are aware of WHAT YOU LIKE and don't try to go more towards the real thing as well as HOW MUCH YOU LIKE so it doesn't become a problem for you and others. Paraphilias are an intense attraction, something pathological in many cases and to say that someone who likes lolis is already automatically a fart is just absurd lol, in the same way I don't think there is a link between one and the other which is what we are discussing in the first place.To this let's add that people tend to easily confuse any form of attraction with sexual attraction, for example tell me here who hasn't dreamt at some point that they have had sex with their mother or sisters, and this ''confusion'' does not necessarily have to be a passing thing, and can apply to cute characters.
- Third, here we will fall into art, and how art through an ''exaggeration and visual narrative`` expresses certain things to its viewers, simply put, you can make a child look sexually attractive to you through a drawing by using expression, narrative and exaggeration, and this will apply to many people whether they deny it or not lol, this is a good way to explain why seeing these typical 3d model illustrations feels so weird and no attractive, however lolis designs are usually very attractive and I doubt you will find someone who can tell you without getting their ideals in the way, i bet all these people who say that lolis are for pedophiles also see lolis attractive in a certain way but refuse to acknowledge it lol in fact many do accept that they are cute but not sexually attractive, but from that to the other there really isn't much difference, the problem is that they are made to be attractive, and the people who create them create them taking into account (not so consciously) of aspects that make them attractive, at the end get to think that the only thing that really differentiates an ''adult'' character from a ''child'' character is simply the volume of their body lol, something that would not be so in real life. In the end humans are sexual organisms and when we see something with a merely human aspect we will unconsciously try to sexualize it, try to see if it is a good match to reproduce or not if to these we add characteristics that make it more attractive then the result is evident and that doesn't mean at all that you are a pedophile lol.
It would be really complicated to know if all this started as pedophilia derived or not, I personally think not, although there might have been some real pedophile contributions to this art style, which I don't really see the problem and it doesn't mean that the consumers are really pedophiles either. Having said all this I would bet that only a small percentage of lolicon/shotacon are actually pedophiles, also keep in mind that pedophilia is a mental disorder that can influence behavior, so it is common for pedophiles to try to find a way to satiate their peculiar sexual interest, besides representing a problem in the life of the affected (or for those who surround him or victims) therefore it is really complicated to differentiate a paraphilia of common eroticism that is why it is usually accepted that paraphilias are pathological disorders due to the damage they can cause, in lolicon is quite apart to real so the damage is null, in any case would be to oneself, but that would be something different from pedophilia since you do not try to have sex with children, do you understand what I mean? , And you should not directly label anyone as a pedophile without properly studying their behavior patterns and the damages of these.
I personally really doubt that current practices of consumption of lolicon/shotacon content are linked to pedophilia (although it is possible in a small amount of people), for example it is more and more common to find people who are only sexually interested in 2D characters and that automatically stops being part of any chronophilia to become a completely new and different paraphilia with its own characteristics and behavior patterns although in some aspects it is possible to find similarities only because the objective has a merely human aspect.
Anyway, great shit that I have released here lol, probably few people read all this, but well it's just my opinion and point of view based on the things I have investigated on my own and the knowledge and experiences with psychology that I have had throughout my life.
Of course this should not be taken as the absolute truth but in the same way you will never find an expert in psychology (that is respected) that with the current knowledge of psychology can give an absolute truth on this subject, because simply psychology does not work like that and many times it is very complicated to prove things because each case is peculiar.
I repeat it many times but it never hurts, psychology often completely ignores the scientific method, it is a ''science'' that still requires much study and improvement (this includes psychiatry and all related branches including psychoanalysis and sexology).
In short ''they look like children=pedophilia`` is not the right way to approach this, it is a fallacy.