>>2459520>You mean muscles and pubes make or break a character being considered shota?Yes, obviously. It's called puberty. It's a pretty clear division.
I don't want to be "that guy." but...
You can call dwarfs and chibis "shota" if you want, in a loose sense of the word associated with size, but it's not "shotacon". You can call Korcha here "shota" because he has a baby face, but he's 16!
You're using the word colloquially. Not the literal sense of the word. And normally, I wouldn't be the one to call out technicalities or get bent out of shape at the sight of hyperboles. But unfortunately there are stupid people who don't know the difference and will report images because in their heads Shota = Minors. And that's a slippery slope because 18 is the legal age for REAL models to appear in pornography. But fictional character's aren't under the jurisdiction of the law. And what we're really stepping into is thought-crimes. But being attracted to a minor isn't criminal. Seeing them naked in person isn't a crime, and consent laws allowing, you could have sex with them. The whole point of the laws are to prevent abuse and exploitation of REAL people.
The idea of sexualizing a fictional preschooler disturbed me. It's more unlawful to draw nudes of Jacob from Twilight using using the actor Taylor Lautner's likeness at 16. Because Taylor Lautner is a real person and that model is under 18. Some places don't even protect minors from themselves. A 16yo can have sex with their boyfriend, but can't sextext them photos because that's pornography of a minor.
However, going back to Taylor Lautner, Szadek could protect himself with a disclaimer "all characters are fictitious and any resemblance to persons living or dead is coincidental" like most parodies do to prevent legal action for libel.
There's no risk of libel from fictional character. Only copyright infringements from copyright holders, which is what Szadek should really worry about.
