>>35312455Well, the point was that the gay analogy wasn't accurate, and again, the word pedophilia is a specific word referring to a specific exclusive attraction. I think your beef is actually with people fapping to images that abstractly resemble physical characteristics often associated with children. Do you think a person who faps to MLP porn actually wants to fuck real horses? Or people who wank to Krystal from Star Fox want to bang real foxes? If the attraction is based on a real-life attraction, then you'd be claiming by extension that one who faps to an Eevee would necessarily be attracted to real Eevee, but there is no such thing as a real Eevee, so we know that the attraction is not incumbent on a real-life representation.
I'm not concerned with what a court would say, and I don't think you have any experience with Judges making such a claim--not that it would matter; judges aren't logically infallible.
>Just own up to the fact that if you like Loli that you like childlike figures in some way shape or formThis is true, but I would argue that almost every human is in the same boat. Do you prefer short women or tall women? Children are short; therefore, if you prefer short women, you like a childlike figure in some way, shape, or form (those were your vague words). What about hairless women? Also resembling of children as an adult would grow armpit hair, leg hair, etc. Youthful women? Childlike. Playful women? Childlike. You see how this vague argument leads nowhere?
