mynameisJ wrote...
i lol'd.... if you do suicide, you'll die.... dude... argghh...*facepalm*
Please, try to be reasonable when arguing.
I wasn't being literal, just comparing an obviously exaggerated example to your flawed logic. Your rebuttal actually caused me to lol at your incompetence by not realizing that.
Just be a man and admit that Otaku and Waar got you with their individual points.
If you had bothered to do any research you would have found out that historically "pedophile" comes from the greek word
paidophilia (Ï€αιδοφιλία): pais (Ï€αις, "child") and philia (φιλία, "love, friendship"). Literally "To love a child" and under this definition anybody who loves a child is a pedophile, especially parents. Any person who looks at lolicon and refers to themselves as a pedophile is referring to this definition 99% of the time, a few odd balls prevent the number from being 100%
Current legal definitions come from the works of
In 1886 a Viennese psychiatrist known as Richard von Krafft-Ebing coined the phrase paedophilia erotica which was described as having
1). The sexual interest is toward prepubescent youths only (didn't include teenagers).
Richard Von Krafft-Ebing also categorized them in three groups
1) pedophile
2) surrogate (that is, the youth are regarded as a substitute object for a preferred, non-available adult object)
3) sadist
This is the root of the modern definition which shows up in the book "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems" along with a revision of that books definition by The "APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". These are futher categorized
here.
So to answer you question in the simplest matter. A pedophile (child molester) can look at
lolicon (art) but, being a lolicon (Lolita complex) doesn't make you a pedophile.
-----------------------------------------------------
ZiggyOtaku wrote...
Often pedophiles themselves were molested and abused as children and aren't even in the right state of mind.
Hate to burst your bubble champ but, research in 1996 by the the US Government Accountability Office concluded, "the existence of a cycle of sexual abuse was not established." The reason for the "cycle of violence" theory was because the research was retrospective. Most studies since then have asked the abusers if they were themselves abused in their childhood, the number which turned out to be low thus debunking the CoV theory. While research done by James Cantor, Ray Blanchard and several of their colleagues, reported a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function. Details can be found
here.