Yes, you’re obsession is obvious. Doom 2016 obviously does. Ok, so you’re accusing all of NUF to be lolicons?! You’re probably right. (in case you haven’t figured it out, I’m baiting you. I’m a master bait-er.)
Don't twist my words. And yes, i am in a way related to lolicons. I do know a lot of lolicons here on the internet. I guess i was baited. But you're less of aggravating, more of annoying? Personally, at least.
Did you just assume our sexual orientation? Just so that you don't get the wrong idea, I only like you because you have candy.
The distinction is fapping to real kids lmao. On top of that, one is illegal and one is legal in most countries. There's very clear, obvious distinctions but I guess you just don't feel like recognizing facts. No one gives a shit if you find them equally disturbing, which frankly speaking, is stupid. No offense, but if you think a guy fapping ONLY to 2d pictures is equally disturbing as someone who facilitates the abuse and torture of actual humans, your moral compass is shit.
Oh please. Let's act like I was the one picking fights when degenerates felt the need to justify their very 'wholesome' preferences to me because they took a hit on a stone I threw in the air.
There is no distinction. The definition never states that pedophiles are attracted only to Real children. The definition applies to that group since again you're fapping to drawings of little kids. It doesn't matter whether you sick freaks found some 'loop hole' to justify your fantasies. The only distinction here is a convicted pedophile and a pedophile. In either case go turn yourself in or get some help.
You did know that the original topic itself asked that as a direct question? Even if they weren't trying to justify themselves to you, they still needed to answer the OP's question...
My guy, that is the dumbest stretch of a definition I've ever heard. It's fucking implied, get out of here with that bullshit lmao. I'm sorry that the people who made the definition a couple hundred years ago didn't know that anime was going to be a thing. Whatever it's pointless talking to someone who clearly lacks the ability to understand basic common sense. I bet you're also the type of person who calls someone who has sex with a 17 year old a pedophile Yes, that's right. Pedophilia IS the sexual attraction to ACTUAL children. If you are not attracted to ACTUAL children, you are NOT a pedophile. Some pedophiles might be attracted to ACTUAL children AND 2d lolis, but it's only the former that matters in terms of the title they get.
If I don't feel the need to justify myself then they have no reason to get argumentative over my literally three word sentence. I threw a rock in the air and it was accurate, People got offended because they know they have sick fantasies. Not my fault.
What's hard to understand about a definition that literally says sexually attracted to children? Imagine getting offended over a term that clearly applies to a group of pedoph-. Oh I'm sorry, You guys are Lolicons, What a bunch of gentleman!. Does that fancy term sounds more appealing to your ears? HAHAHAHA. There's a difference between a convicted lolicon and a lolicon. Don't be salty.
Surprise surprise, people get offended when you call them pedophiles, who woulda thought. It's not the only buzzword that people get offended by, I would be incredibly offended if a woman claimed I was a rapist. What's so hard to understand? Apparently you are having trouble. It's the attraction to actual children.
How would you differentiate "sick fantasies" and "neoteny" which is a vital part of human society? (in case you don't know, the term "neoteny" is "love for their young" in behavioral science terms, i.e animals that "love" and "take care of" their young). It's kind of a necessary part of human behavior because if we didn't love our kids, we would have strangled them years ago. I think you might be being excessively judgemental on other people.
Presumably, if you are sexually attracted to say, Vanilla or Chocola from Nekopara, you are a pedophile. If you just find them cute, which would actually still qualify you as a lolicon btw, you're safe. As long as you have no desire to fuck and or fap to these non existent "children", you're not a pedo. Oh wait, but the fact that someone who just thinks that lolis are cute, with no sexual desire attached are still considered lolicons kinda hampers all the stupid people claiming that all lolicons are just pedophiles using another name huh.
Define children while you're at it, since I have a feeling, again, you're the type of person that claims a fully developed 16 year old like Kurumi from DAL is also a child since she's technically under 18, and if you fap to anyone under 18 you're a pedophile. O wait I forgot the age of consent can be anywhere from 13 to 22 depending on where you live..well fuck, how could you possibly gauge what a pedo is then?? Is it something you arbitrarily decide based on what country you happen to have grown up in? What is your stance on 20 something year old asians that literally look 12? If you're attracted to fully grown adults that happen to also look incredibly young, does that make you a closet pedophile? And also, what's your take on the primary part of the definition of pedo, which stipulates that your attraction to children has to be your primary or only sexual attraction? How do you differentiate between someone who's primarily attracted to grown humans but dabbles in a bit of loli vs someone who is primarily attracted to lolis but has a handful of adult characters they can fap to?