>>3931790Op here. Here is what I disagree on.
>sexual pleasure from the thought of underage individuals in sexual situationsThis is to speak about a character whom doesn't exist and can't be preyed upon on the same terms with a real child who has real life vulnerabilities. If I were to take a loli character, say Shinobu, and produce 1000 lewd pictures of her, would there measurable harm done? Do you even care? However, if you were to do the reverse with a real child, you understand.
Doesn't matter if the underage person is >fictional or not, the end result is the same: you just jerked off to a sexual fantasy involving minors.
Except that one image is literal fantasy with every right to exist and one is involving a real child that has a physical body attached to it with real consequences. Drawings are far too subjective to pidgeon-hole them into the definition of pedophilia anyhow. One could always find a silly loophole, (7 year physical appearance(Which is also subjective anyways because of anime's artstyle) but is actually 100 years old. Or a fully matured woman, who I can call 2 years old and call you a pedo for jacking off to it) and you'd look silly trying to attach some nonsensical morality to it; and I already believe you're exhibiting this senselessness by stubbornly acknowledging no differences between 2D and 3D in this case.
On a side note, no 2D drawings do not look like real life kids, almost nothing alike except for their frame usually, unless they are attempting to be more realistic which would forego the anime artstyle a variable degree. Here's my definition of pedophilia: If you go to your local park, see kids, and regularly get a stiffy, you're a pedo.If you see a jap's drawing (Mind you they're really good at drawing and remember the subjectivity of drawings since inamimate objects can be drawn erotic too) of an underage character with a figure literally drawn to make your dick hard, no, you're not a pedo.You like just how japs draw.
