Well no. Pedophilia is the attraction to real children and lolicon is the attraction to illustrations of prepubertal girl like characters that doesn’t even need to be sexual.
There is a big difference between these too.
The translation is also wrong because in Japanese there exist the loanword pedophilia and it was not used in the original so translating it as another existing word is pretty bad.
this isn’t some baudrillard level type of simulacra shit, it’s literally people using cartoons as analogs to their real attractions, so yes, they are pedos.
Well no. Pedophilia in a non medical context is not necessarily about features and mostly about power. Most CSA happens because it is an easy power imbalance, not because the perpetrators are attracted to childrean. For example in many countries with good Internet connections and a low socieoeconomic Standing producers of CSAM are often Mothers that need money for food they themselfs are not pedohiliac - they have a power imbalance and an economic incentive. At the same time the viewers of these live streams are often not pedohiliac too but want an easy victim for their Powerfantasie.
With this popular depiction lolicons are not the same because, as they are only attracted to fictional characters, they will never harm childrean.
In a medical context a pedophile is exclusively or primarily attracted to childrean. Most ppl with pedophilia never harm a child btw. Lolicon on the other hand is not a paraphilia so while you are attracted to fictional childlike characters it has not to be exclusive. From a medical standpoint being sexually attracted to a minor alone is not pedophilia as long as you are as much attracted to non minors. Primary or exclusive attraction is a necessary symptom of pedophilia.
Further in Japanese culture being sexual attracted to post puberty women who have a very childlike demeanor is also considered lolicon. As an example the 24 year old pornstar playing a schoolgirl trope in western porn would also be considered lolicon. A pedohile would be someone that rapes children in person or by proxy. If someone does not understand this difference they are part of the problem.
The amazing digital circus might thank part of its popularity to the nostalgia of the kidcore aesthetic featured troughout the circus.
The adult lead character pomni appears as a clown with little features that we would objectively associate with an adult wonen besides possessing the clear psychological maturity and intelligence of an adult.
The features of pomni could be described as short stature, a bright childlike color scheme, and large eyes relative to the face, a physiological trait often associated with infancy in mammals.
Now for science, is it pedophia to wank off to amazing digital circus porn of pomni and does it make a difference wether its a visual drawing or a text based work of fiction.
My point is not to convince you of annythhing just that your argument itself easily falls apart once one has to define “childlike features” into a legal/moral setting.
It’s a genuine very good youtube series that is rivalling industrial production quality and popularity, i am just using it as a very twisted example. Dont let my description stop you from watching it. Adc characters are not in any way portrayed in a sexual nature, unless you count this.
Well no. Pedophilia is the attraction to real children and lolicon is the attraction to illustrations of prepubertal girl like characters that doesn’t even need to be sexual. There is a big difference between these too.
The translation is also wrong because in Japanese there exist the loanword pedophilia and it was not used in the original so translating it as another existing word is pretty bad.
this isn’t some baudrillard level type of simulacra shit, it’s literally people using cartoons as analogs to their real attractions, so yes, they are pedos.
I’m confused, are you pro- or anti policing? 🤔
lol. anti cop. ha. good catch. forgot my parens!
If you’re into these depictions because they’re depicted as children…
Well no. Pedophilia in a non medical context is not necessarily about features and mostly about power. Most CSA happens because it is an easy power imbalance, not because the perpetrators are attracted to childrean. For example in many countries with good Internet connections and a low socieoeconomic Standing producers of CSAM are often Mothers that need money for food they themselfs are not pedohiliac - they have a power imbalance and an economic incentive. At the same time the viewers of these live streams are often not pedohiliac too but want an easy victim for their Powerfantasie. With this popular depiction lolicons are not the same because, as they are only attracted to fictional characters, they will never harm childrean.
In a medical context a pedophile is exclusively or primarily attracted to childrean. Most ppl with pedophilia never harm a child btw. Lolicon on the other hand is not a paraphilia so while you are attracted to fictional childlike characters it has not to be exclusive. From a medical standpoint being sexually attracted to a minor alone is not pedophilia as long as you are as much attracted to non minors. Primary or exclusive attraction is a necessary symptom of pedophilia.
Further in Japanese culture being sexual attracted to post puberty women who have a very childlike demeanor is also considered lolicon. As an example the 24 year old pornstar playing a schoolgirl trope in western porn would also be considered lolicon. A pedohile would be someone that rapes children in person or by proxy. If someone does not understand this difference they are part of the problem.
Is it because they depict children or because they depict child like features?
By the first, technically adult characters in a child like body (lucky star) wouldn’t count.
By the second, catgirl cosplay counts as bestiality.
Things get seriously vague once you consider diverse aesthetic cores, like goth loli fashion. also technically is.
Is it pedophilia if you wanna have sex in a ballpit with your adult partner while dressed as clowns while sucking oversized pacifiers? Just asking.
If someone is specifically into child like features and akshually they’re a 9000 year old dragon, yeah they’re a pedo
The amazing digital circus might thank part of its popularity to the nostalgia of the kidcore aesthetic featured troughout the circus.
The adult lead character pomni appears as a clown with little features that we would objectively associate with an adult wonen besides possessing the clear psychological maturity and intelligence of an adult.
The features of pomni could be described as short stature, a bright childlike color scheme, and large eyes relative to the face, a physiological trait often associated with infancy in mammals.
Now for science, is it pedophia to wank off to amazing digital circus porn of pomni and does it make a difference wether its a visual drawing or a text based work of fiction.
My point is not to convince you of annythhing just that your argument itself easily falls apart once one has to define “childlike features” into a legal/moral setting.
I thought I had an aneurysm trying to parse the first paragraph. I am not going to google any of that
It’s a genuine very good youtube series that is rivalling industrial production quality and popularity, i am just using it as a very twisted example. Dont let my description stop you from watching it. Adc characters are not in any way portrayed in a sexual nature, unless you count this.
🤣🤡