Search Results
7/11/2025, 1:05:29 AM
>>936927180
>do [...] you identify yourself as a pedophile?
Yeah. I'm non-offending, non-exclusive (i.e. I still find adult women attractive), and I don't regularly consume CP, but I've seen enough online to know.
>why [...] keep both categories separate?
I imagine "attraction to children" and "attraction to lolis" as two circles in a Venn diagram. I exist in the middle, but there are also:
>pedophiles unable to derive enjoyment from loli porn, unlike with CP
>lolicons indifferent or averse to CP, but who are aroused by idealized, stylized lolis
I don't conflate pedophiles with lolicons because I can't know whether any particular person is a lolicon, a pedophile, or both, so it's safer to label them what they claim they are instead of making assumptions. As an adolescent, I was a lolicon, but I wasn't a pedophile; only interested in girls my age and older. Not long before hitting 18, I found myself ogling little girls, getting hot, sweaty and awkward near them, and frequently imagining myself with them, doing things to them. Before these intrusive thoughts, I was a lolicon but not a pedophile. I don't doubt there are fully-formed adults with less malleable brains who, similarly, are lolicons without being pedophiles. People who can find adult women and lolis sexy, despite feeling nothing for real little girls.
>do you know perhaps why this is a common narrative
Back to the Venn diagram, the MAP position is seemingly that the circles overlap completely, likely because they want to screen for pedophiles amidst lolicons and garner support. I'm not familiar with the movement, so I can't speak definitively on it.
On the other hand, some lolicons consider the circles mutually exclusive. While lolicons aren't all demonstrably pedophiles, you'd have to be delusional to claim there's no comorbidity between liking lolis and pedophilia, or that a lolicon isn't more likely to be a pedophile than a non-lolicon. The attractions are undeniably associated, though not equivalent.
>do [...] you identify yourself as a pedophile?
Yeah. I'm non-offending, non-exclusive (i.e. I still find adult women attractive), and I don't regularly consume CP, but I've seen enough online to know.
>why [...] keep both categories separate?
I imagine "attraction to children" and "attraction to lolis" as two circles in a Venn diagram. I exist in the middle, but there are also:
>pedophiles unable to derive enjoyment from loli porn, unlike with CP
>lolicons indifferent or averse to CP, but who are aroused by idealized, stylized lolis
I don't conflate pedophiles with lolicons because I can't know whether any particular person is a lolicon, a pedophile, or both, so it's safer to label them what they claim they are instead of making assumptions. As an adolescent, I was a lolicon, but I wasn't a pedophile; only interested in girls my age and older. Not long before hitting 18, I found myself ogling little girls, getting hot, sweaty and awkward near them, and frequently imagining myself with them, doing things to them. Before these intrusive thoughts, I was a lolicon but not a pedophile. I don't doubt there are fully-formed adults with less malleable brains who, similarly, are lolicons without being pedophiles. People who can find adult women and lolis sexy, despite feeling nothing for real little girls.
>do you know perhaps why this is a common narrative
Back to the Venn diagram, the MAP position is seemingly that the circles overlap completely, likely because they want to screen for pedophiles amidst lolicons and garner support. I'm not familiar with the movement, so I can't speak definitively on it.
On the other hand, some lolicons consider the circles mutually exclusive. While lolicons aren't all demonstrably pedophiles, you'd have to be delusional to claim there's no comorbidity between liking lolis and pedophilia, or that a lolicon isn't more likely to be a pedophile than a non-lolicon. The attractions are undeniably associated, though not equivalent.
Page 1