/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

In Japan, people kill themselves because of beeing fired and bad grades.

Why isnt this done in the west?

>>22779

That happens in the west, too.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/minnesota-man-kills-front-coworkers-fired-job-article-1.960052

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/2034371-penn-freshman-commits-suicide-after-bad.html

>>22773

> Why is the distinction made in the West?

Which distinction are you specifically talking about? The distinction between 'lolicon' as a genre of art and 'paedophilia' as a sexual orientation (I know the term is ambiguous), the distinction between 'paedophilia' and 'paedophile', or the distinction between 'lolicon' as a genre and a paedophile person?

In general, this is an issue of the Japanese language, which doesn't necessarily make a distinction between concepts between which e.g. English does. For instance, アニメ (anime) can refer to a specific movie (子供が見ているアニメ, kodomo ga mite iru anime, the anime movie the kids are watching) or the set of such movies (アニメが好き, anime ga suki, I like anime movies). Likewise, ロリコン can refer to a person, a set of people, and, furthermore, a genre of art. Japanese language doesn't need to make the distinction, while English usually does, so this is primarily a linguistic issue.

Additionally, Japan never had substantially severe problems with paedophilia (or what the West is used to dub as such), one reason why it took them so long to ban child porn. And it's also one reason why Japan's society has never really looked into the subject of paedophilia and, therefore, doesn't commonly distinguish between the orientation and related, yet distinct conceptions.

And last but not least, there already was a word for paedophilia in Western languages when the term ロリコン got borrowed from the Japanese (who themselves borrowed it from the West, but that's a somewhat common phenomenon, see 'anime'), or rather, it didn't get borrowed to be a term for paedophilia but to be a term for the Lolicon genre so it's not the distinction that was not made but the unification of these terms instead. In Japan, on the other hand, ロリコン is being used as a 'handy' word for the rather cumbersome ペドファイル or 小児性愛者 you mention: Just count the syllables (lolicon/rorikon: 3; pedofairu: 4; shōniseiaisha: 5).

>Why is the distinction made in the West?

Is there such a distinction?

I imagine the common man isn't really that aware if at all of lolicons specifically, and if they were they would certainly consider them pedophiles or basically pedophiles.

>>22789

>Japan never had substantially severe problems with paedophilia

Japan has a precedent of severely downplaying its social issues and its policies change at a glacier's pace compared to the west. it doesn't look into the subject because japanese culture itself is very non confrontational and those involved in pedophilic activities on both sides are far more likely to settle matters out of court or kept in the family.

>>22790

Pedophilia itself isn't the social problem that Western society makes it out to be.

There isn't really. It's just that "lolicons" don't want to admit that they are pedophiles, and insist that they don't like 3D (and they obviously watch the moe moe anime for the plot). Good for them, I guess, but they'll probably have to confront it eventually.

Asked this in another thread but Ill ask here since nobody really knew

>How much physical contact is acceptable for a volunteer to have with a little girl and do they get questioned if you take them, let us say, to the movies or arcade, after you return them?

Got disapproved from my adoption and looking into volunteering at a shelter or boys and girls youth club

>>22798

You will meet a large amount of skepticism. No man is taking any kids that aren't his to the movies or arcade or anywhere else alone.

and they'll be rightfully skeptical given the tone of your question and post

"Lolicons" are just the pedophile version of a heterosexual who is only attracted to drawn women.

>>22798

>Got disapproved from my adoption and looking into volunteering at a shelter or boys and girls youth club

Stop. You're going down a dangerous road. Sexual contact does damage children, whether its from society or from the act exclusively the fact is by having sexual contact with a child you are risking their mental health. You should do your best to avoid contact with children you're sexually attracted to. That doesnt mean shutting yourself indoors and being a hermit or quitting your job if a child is within a 100 meters of the premises but it does mean you should refrain from being in the position where you can get sexual gratification from them, like or example working at a youth club or shelter.

Just dont do it dude.

Some days I also really want some contact with lolis and I ofcourse fantasize about it but its important to distance your fantasies from reality as much as possible. Although you may trust yourself, there are plenty of people with no worse self control than you who have tried and failed the "Pull out" method of birth control. So dont put yourself in any position like that because you will lie to yourself that what you're doing isnt that bad and you'll rationalize until the point where you risk damaging a child.

>>22798

Might as well be making a trip to Mexico or Thailand with all that initiative.

>>22790

> Japan has a precedent of severely downplaying its social issues and its policies change at a glacier's pace compared to the west. it doesn't look into the subject because japanese culture itself is very non confrontational and those involved in pedophilic activities on both sides are far more likely to settle matters out of court or kept in the family.

I believe that's exactly the reason why Japan never had substantially severe problems with paedophilia.

Of course it's open to dispute whether downplaying any issue is a good thing, but on the other hand exaggerating it hyperbolically doesn't help either. The Japanese are generally quite good at identifying exactly what the problem is, but they may very well lack the will to change anything (hence, policies changing at a glacier's pace) as they are usually unsure whether a certain change would have the desired effect – or a counterproductive impact. As a matter of fact, that's systematic in Japanese society – cautiousness. Yes, those involved in paedophilic activities settling matters on their own belongs to that.

I'd say that behaving non-confrontational shouldn't be underestimated; if you take into consideration that one of the next levels of confrontation is war, non-confrontational behaviour can be thought of as the key to peace. Well, that's the big picture – in little, settling matters as best as possible out of court might have benefits as well, not only in terms of getting along with each other but also in terms of relieving the pressure on the courts by decreasing the number of cases to be processed. Don't get me wrong, if someone has committed a crime, they should be punished, but according to the severity of the crime; and in the West, at least that's what I believe to be observing, paedophilic crimes are being made a mountain out of a molehill, resulting in an unduly disproportionate exaggeration of this kind of crime's perceived importance.

>>22795

> It's just that "lolicons" don't want to admit that they are pedophiles

I don't think it's that easy. There is actually a difference in how drawn girls and real girls attract people. I experience that myself – I can get aroused by girls drawn in an appropriately cute and sexy way regardless of the age they are supposed to represent, but the mere thought of fucking a real child gives me the creeps. Consequently, the thought of getting attracted by an underage girl isn't quite pleasant either. So I wouldn't consider myself a paedophile, but I do like lolicon (art).

I believe (although I don't know of any studies regarding this) that our brain is not only capable of distinguishing drawn things from real things but also of separating those worlds, keeping them neatly apart, ultimately allowing for distinct emotional consequences is either world.

>Got disapproved from my adoption and looking into volunteering at a shelter or boys and girls youth club

You just going to accept a bunch of women disapproving your adoption? You going to allow women to run your country?

>>23093

> I can get aroused by girls drawn in an appropriately cute and sexy way regardless of the age they are supposed to represent, but the mere thought of fucking a real child gives me the creeps. Consequently, the thought of getting attracted by an underage girl isn't quite pleasant either. So I wouldn't consider myself a paedophile, but I do like lolicon (art).

nobody's buying it anon, you're a pedophile in denial

>>23125

Nobody said it was women, anon.

Loli is pedo

>Nobody said it was women, anon.

Nobody had to.

It was women. We all know it.

Women or men who wish to protect women.

>>23093

So basically you're a pedo but find the term and the social implications to be yucky

>>23129

> nobody's buying it anon, you're a pedophile in denial

I'm aware that nobody's buying that, but it's the internet… no-one can verify it. No-one can verify it anyway, as it's purely in my head.

Still, whether you believe me or not, a paedophile is a person who's attracted to children – and I'm pretty positive I can't be mistaken believing that's just not the case for me.

>>23134

> Loli is pedo

Yet another person who terminates thinking a bit too early.

>>23160

> So basically you're a pedo but find the term and the social implications to be yucky

Not sure what you're trying to impute to me, but as I said, I don't consider myself a paedo. Whether the term is yucky, is another question (one I don't have the stamina to discuss), but as I don't consider myself one, I don't care about the social implications. I do think adult guys fucking children is yucky, but the advantage of lolicon is that the way it's depicted there isn't yucky. Somewhat exactly like with other comics: Many people fancy action genre comics (also manga, anime) including people getting hurt, murdered, lots of blood flowing etc., but most of them wouldn't like such situations in real life. I even bet most of them would be given the creeps by the mere thought of e.g. killing an actual person.

There is a substantial difference between imagination and reality.

>>23318

>a paedophile is a person who's attracted to children – and I'm pretty positive I can't be mistaken believing that's just not the case for me.

Your words were literally " I can get aroused by girls drawn in an appropriately cute and sexy way regardless of the age." I'm not attracted to grandmas in real life, and I'm not attracted to them in drawings either. If you can jack off to a drawing, you can jack off to the real thing.

You have already said the only reason you don't jack off to real children is because it makes you feel creepy, not because you aren't attracted to children. Just because you believe you aren't a pedophile doesn't mean you aren't one either.

Most pedos spend time in self-denial.

Seriously, you're browsing and posting on a board called Pedophilia Discussion. You're a pedophile, get over it.

>>23318

let's look at heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is defined as being attracted to the opposite sex.

Is a man who is only attracted to drawn women NOT a heterosexual?

>>23322

> If you can jack off to a drawing, you can jack off to the real thing.

I can't, obviously. At least it's obvious to me that I can't. If you don't believe me, I can't help it, as I can't invite you to my brain.

And you seem to have gotten something else wrong either:

> Your words were literally " I can get aroused by girls drawn in an appropriately cute and sexy way regardless of the age."

I can get aroused by girls drawn in an appropriately cute and sexy way. The age the drawn girl 'has', that is, looks like, doesn't matter then. Drawn people don't have 'ages', they don't have birth certificates, so talking about that is inherently imprecise anyway.

> You have already said the only reason you don't jack off to real children is because it makes you feel creepy, not because you aren't attracted to children.

No. I did say that 'the mere thought of fucking a real child gives me the creeps'. That's not a deliberate decision because of some feeling of guilt or something, it's just what I feel. You might be right that this doesn't automatically mean I'm not attracted to children, but what I feel sure about is that I'd have noticed if I'd ever been attracted to a child. That is, unless that attraction was overwhelmed by the nausea caused by the thought of fucking that kid, but in that case I wouldn't even say there was any attraction. You see, that's what I meant by 'it's not that easy'.

> Just because you believe you aren't a pedophile doesn't mean you aren't one either.

While that's true, just because you believe I am a paedophile doesn't mean I am one, either. At least you diagnosis is a little bit … premature.

> Most pedos spend time in self-denial.

By 'self-denial', do you mean the paedos know they are paedos but don't want to believe/accept it or do you mean they don't even kow they're paedos and refuse to take the possibility into consideration? In the former case, analysing my case would be somewhat difficult. In the latter case, I'm not one of these.

> Seriously, you're browsing and posting on a board called Pedophilia Discussion.

I'd never have guessed. So non-paedos aren't allowed to post on a board called 'Pedophilia Discussion'?

>>23327

> Is a man who is only attracted to drawn women NOT a heterosexual?

If he's unable to get attracted by women in real life, nor by any other human being, I'd call him an asexual. Maybe there a different reason why he isn't into real women, but I never said it's an easy matter. Indeed, it was me who said it's not that easy.

I'm not bluntly claiming nobody who's into drawn children is a paedophile. I'm just advocating caution: Judgments based on outcomes are prone to be prejudices. A man who's mainly into adult women but has a soft spot for drawn girls that look younger, too, is certainly different from a man who's mainly into children but masturbates to drawn ones because he doesn't want to admit his feelings.

The difference between the two is also that they are likely to differ in terms of how they are attracted to a drawn child. You can be attracted to a drawn girl because of her being a child (with child-like features), or you can be attracted to a drawn girl because the artist endowed her with enough 'adult-sexy' features to activate a 'normal' person's passion but left her cute and childish enough to be considered a child in general. I think that's the case for me as I couldn't acquire a taste for drawn children that are depicted in a decidedly immature way but do take pleasure in drawn girls that, although being supposed to be rather young (i.e. drawn to look like that), expose features commonly found in adult women, too.

>>23339

> There's no need to be in denial here.

I don't see why I shouldn't be denying something I don't believe in, even here, but that's not the main point; I wanted to answer OP's question (or at least try to) and got carried away by the, in my opinion, overhasty and thought-terminating claim (or cliché) that '"lolicons" don't want to admit that they are pedophiles'.

>>23625

>Drawn people don't have 'ages', they don't have birth certificates, so talking about that is inherently imprecise anyway.

Another pathetic deflection that just confirms my point. Of course people can be drawn to look a certain age. You jack off to loli because they look like underage children. That is the entire point of loli. The entire point.

>or you can be attracted to a drawn girl because the artist endowed her with enough 'adult-sexy' features to activate a 'normal' person's passion but left her cute and childish enough to be considered a child in general.

There are plenty of drawings of women that look like adults that should be 'cute' enough for you. But the reality is it wasnt about the cuteness, it was about lolis being drawn representations of underage children. That is what appeals to you. That is the attraction.

>I'd never have guessed. So non-paedos aren't allowed to post on a board called 'Pedophilia Discussion'?

It seriously reduces the plausibility of you being a non pedo.

>I don't see why I shouldn't be denying something I don't believe in, even here, but that's not the main point

You just spent the majority of your lengthy post making that denial, it is clearly the main point.

It's no skin off my back if you feel the need to lie to strangers on the internet, but it's going to be a pound of flesh off yours eventually if keep lying to yourself.

Why do you even feel the need to make a point for point defense of not being a pedo to strangers on the internet in the first place?

>>23636

> You jack off to loli because they look like underage children.

> That is what appeals to you. That is the attraction.

Interesting how strongly you seem to believe you know me and my mind better than I do. Really interesting. It seriously reduces the plausibility of you being qualified to participate in this discussion.

> You just spent the majority of your lengthy post making that denial, it is clearly the main point.

I was talking about the main point of this thread, not the main point of my post – sorry I didn't convey that clearly. You're right, the main point of my post was indeed what you call my 'denial'. And both back then and now it's my concern that neither me nor whatever my sexual orientation might be is the gist of this thread – or the gist of what you were talking about in the first place, by the way: The stumbling block was your claim that '"lolicons" don't want to admit that they are pedophiles', a claim I tried to argue against, obviously not succeeding in persuading you. It's your right to believe that '"lolicons" don't want to admit that they are pedophiles', it's not my aim to deny you that right, but you were never supposed to play my headshrinker. Maybe what I wrote wasn't even my own experience but a varnished example? Oh, of course you won't believe me that. It's notorious of your constricted world view that you don't believe any single thing I tell you but rather keep molding it to your personal favourite theory.

> There are plenty of drawings of women that look like adults that should be 'cute' enough for you.

There are, but those of them that are manga usually involve breasts you could kill someone with etc.; so if I want manga, I have to stick to lolicon as a reliable source of cute drawings.

> It's no skin off my back if you feel the need to lie to strangers on the internet

I'm just going to quote myself:

> I'm aware […] it's the internet… no-one can verify it. No-one can verify it anyway, as it's purely in my head.

I'd like to stick to that very important point: It's entirely in my head. You're quite audacious, if not impudent, to try telling me what's going on in my head.

> it's going to be a pound of flesh off yours eventually if keep lying to yourself

Thank you for your advice but I'm certainly not going to start lying to myself just because some extremist on the internet believes to know me better than I do.

> Why do you even feel the need to make a point for point defense of not being a pedo to strangers on the internet in the first place?

Because my 'argument', or example, depended on it. I see, I have to come up with something more convincing if I want to persuade you. (And I shouldn't use myself as an example next time.)

>>23642

> Rustle

Don't know. At least haven't read a manga by him.

> Show

Higashiyama? That guy draws a hell of realistic kids, but they are, well, too child-like. Not really attractive.

> Reika

> Lee

> Gomenasai

> Ryo

> Quzillax

Never even heard of.

> And a shitload of others don't do it, they just draw little girls

Don't know whether this is actually true, and if it is, I don't know why they do it either – maybe they are paedophiles, who knows? But then there are mangaka like Kaishinshi or Cuvie or Hoshino Fuuta who don't just draw little girls. They might not be the majority, but it's like literature: Not everyone can be a Thomas Mann or a William Shakespeare.

By the way, >>23642's image doesn't at all look attractive to me.

http://english.pravda.ru/society/sex/30-06-2015/131170-perversion_america_gay_law-0/

>

The demons said during the exorcism, "the same old trap. The same old trap we've taken many in - we still catch them in. That they f–k as necessarily as birds sing, as water flows, as the fire burns. Merely to show how independent they are. How superior they are. That if they don't breathe for f-k-ng, live for f-k-ng, sing in f-k-ng, they can't breathe, cry, sing, love, or do anything. Be liberated. That's what they begin to say. Man, woman, or goat, little boy, or if it comes to that, little girl."

Man + girl is the _worst_.

Why?

It's fine in the old testament.

Why is it the WORST in christianity?

>>23636

> Another pathetic deflection that just confirms my point. Of course people can be drawn to look a certain age. You jack off to loli because they look like underage children. That is the entire point of loli. The entire point.

Let's not pretend to be fools. Either is correct. Drawn people do indeed not have 'ages'. Drawn people do indeed look like a certain age. But just from looks, you cannot precisely measure ages. So doing this is inherently imprecise and therefore doesn't help at all. Furthermore, drawn people can be drawn in a way that age cues conflict. Then they don't look a certain age, but several. You don't usually find people with several ages in reality. The undeniable fact that drawn people don't have ages (and can therefore not be children, only look like children, but it's our imprecise and convenient way of speaking that they 'are' children) is more than another 'pathetic deflection': If you deny that simple fact, you effectively descend to the mental level of the ISIL terrorists who destroy pieces of art that depict something they don't like. Which, again, confirms the unavoidable conclusion that you're nothing but a short-sighted extremist.

>>24213

> Why is it the WORST in christianity?

Christianity is not the problem when it comes to lolicon as loli manga artists are very likely not to be Christians anyway. In Japan, nobody racks their brains over such morality issues to the extent found in the West. Harping on morality and principles isn't a Christian invention either; the Greeks and Romans already did it.

>>24212

those are part of the most important lolicon artists in the last few years

>but those of them that are manga usually involve breasts you could kill someone with

not really, there's even a tag for it on sadpanda

you just like flat chested girls who haven't develop their full adult body On some circles these kind of persons are called pedophiles

>>24217

> not really, there's even a tag for it on sadpanda

For me, pettanko is also loli.

> On some circles these kind of persons are called pedophiles

On some circles people who fuck children are called paedophiles. We should know better. We should know that most child molesters aren't paedophiles. This is really not an argument.

>>24216

if you like people that look undeniably just like children then how could you say you don't like, at least physically, actual children

so regardless of them being or not "children" they are still a depiction of children, and you're still a pedophile

>>24212

Yes, I do know better than you. We all do. We all have seen it so many times before.

>I have to come up with something more convincing if I want to persuade you

The only person you are trying desperately to convincing is yourself.

You can stop and live a more fulfilling life at any moment.

>>24220

The literal definition of pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children.

You have admitted yourself that you are attracted to the form of children.

>>24216

This is the most pathetically empty rationalization I have seen since the last tfw post.

>>24220

Oh please, pettankos aren't flat chested for the most part, they are taller with longer torsos and have wider hips, and only shit artists draw lolis like that

If you only liked pettankos then i'd accept you're on the gray zone and that maybe you aren't a pedophile but that's not the case here

>>24224

> Just look at this pleb

If you don't like my personal attitudes just don't adopt them. No need to give out.

>>24225

I'm sorry you don't have any reason. I'm also sorry to hear you would happily behead people who don't agree with you. Because that's what you imply by calling that 'pathetically empty', my dear.

>>24226

> Oh please, pettankos aren't flat chested for the most part

Is there really a formal definition of pettanko? Well, never mind, I know pettanko are probably more than just flat chested adult women. I subsumed them just for my own internal categorization under 'loli' because they look similar.

> If you only liked pettankos then i'd accept you're on the gray zone and that maybe you aren't a pedophile but that's not the case here

Why is that not the case here?

>>24223

> The literal definition of pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children.

Yes

> You have admitted yourself that you are attracted to the form of children.

Attraction to X ≠ attraction to the form of X. That's what this whole debate is all about. If attraction to X and attraction to the form of X were literally the same, people who like books would also be content with drawings of books. All people I know who like books (including myself) like them because of their contents, not because of their looks.

Also, how do you explain (regardless of what I claimed to be true for me) attraction to drawn children without attraction to real children? You might both call paedophilia, but you will have to admit that there's a difference.

>>24221

> if you like people that look undeniably just like children then how could you say you don't like, at least physically, actual children

Because, as you seem to be unable to understand, they are not real children and our brain knows that. Or, wait, are you talking about the case that they're undistinguishable from real children? That's another issue.

> so regardless of them being or not "children" they are still a depiction of children

I never denied that they are a depiction of children.

> and you're still a pedophile

That's what I do deny.

>>24222

> Yes, I do know better than you.

And I know for sure that you are an unscrupulous mass murderer and blood-craving death fetishist because I know fucking 100% a lot better than you what's going on in your head. Really, you obviously have mental problems, so please go see a doctor. It's even worse:

> We all do.

You even rope others in your irresponsible word-twisting game. You're the scum of our galaxy. Please leave.

> The only person you are trying desperately to convincing is yourself.

No, I can assure you, sir, that I'm entirely convinced of myself. If you don't believe me, I can't help it – you don't seem to believe anything I say except for what pleases you, so there's really no point in providing you with any other arguments.

> You can stop and live a more fulfilling life at any moment.

My life will be more fulfilling the moment you die, but as I don't know who you are, I'll probably never notice that. However, you're right: Withdrawing from this entirely stubborn discussion with several idiots who are dangerously convinced of their non-existing thought-reading capabilities would give me more time for the really important things in life, as well as allow the discussion that was the original intention of OP to continue. By the way, people like you are the reason why so many threads on this board deviate away from their intention. You should be ashamed of yourself.

shaking head How the fuck can a human being be this stupid?

>>24275

>people who like books would also be content with drawings of books

Just look at that false equivalence

In this case Attraction to X = attraction to the form of X because the form of X what causes the attraction, you don't feel attracted to women just because of the fact that they're women but because they have certain characteristic that trigger your attraction, the same happens with little girls and lolis

>They are not real children and our brain knows that.

It really doesn't, if it has the shape of a little girl or any female/male, your brain will recognize it as one, hell, our brains even recognize some patterns as actual faces

You may know it's not real but the part that controls your sexual impulses doesn't

>That's what I do deny.

And you have no sustainable argument to do so

>>24275

> If attraction to X and attraction to the form of X were literally the same, people who like books would also be content with drawings of books.

holy mother of fuck that is some pathetic delusion

you actually had that insane thought, and had it long enough to type out, and were confidant enough about it to actually post it

just fucking wow

>>22773

Another reason is that, historically speaking, lolicon doesn't have anything to do with pedophilia. I don't want to dig into the discussion whether the set of pedos and the set of people who enjoy lolicon images are equal (I myself think that neither is a subset of the other, for obvious reasons), but while it's by definition the latter taking pleasure in (and promoting) lolicon art, that's not how this kind of images evolved in the first place.

There used to be a law in Japan that forbade showing pubic hair, be it in photographs, drawings, and so on. So the ero-manga artists just left it out. That led to them making their drawings look younger, pre-pubescent age. I don't know whether they did this on purpose to make the lack of pubic hair plausible or it just happened because Asian women look more childish than Western ones anyway, and I don't want to adjudicate upon this, but it shows the reason why they started drawing children engaged in sexual acts wasn't because they wanted to draw child porn but because they wanted to draw porn, and the only way they saw to do so was drawing child porn.

Of course that law has long been overcome, and lots of other hentai porn subtypes furnish evidence of that. But lolicon has survived. Why, is not the question here. The important thing is that in its early days, lolicon (art) was something conceptionally so different from pedophilia that in the West – where you only had the art, not the conception of calling pedophilia Lolita complex – it didn't become linked to pedophilia the way this happened in Japan. In subsequent years, in the West the distinction between lolicon and pedophilia flourished while in Japan it did not.

So in a nutshell, for historical reasons lolicon is just a name for a kind of art in the West (like Cubism or Impressionism) while it is more than that in Japan.

>>24313

This is false, childishness in modern manga is due to the moe stylization being the medium staple. The moe stylization in itself evolved from the bishoujo style, which in turn was based on a subset of early shoujo manga, where characters were made cute with large eyes to appeal to female readers. There have been many cross influences as well, and you could also argue that large eyes=cute dates back as far as early japanese disney influences, but that's a separate topic.

The bishoujo style where fanservice was added to the relatively tame "cute" shoujo genre(not the noodle people pretty boy subset, those are pretty darn sexual), incidentally happened to attract large amounts of male readers, possibly due to neotenous features being a point of attraction. The point at which these cute features spread to multiple different styles instead of the rigid body types of bishoujo was when modern moe started.

All the way, lolicon was a niche genre of erotic manga, independent of other developments. But it's the popularisation in bishoujo and moe that led to lolicon leaving it's pedophillic origins and becoming acceptable to the general (sub)culture. This is due to series having adults that looked childlike, blurring the lines between distinguished age-group body types.

Pubic hair has had a very minor influence on lolicon and manga as a whole. It's been prevalent in many hentai and even mainstream series throughout the years, ultimately depending on the authors whim. Though the prevalence of lack of pubic hair portrayal has created a degree of hairless appeal in the japanese subculture, which has traditionally favoured full on pubes(japs don't shave).

Japs don't make solid distinctions between lolicon and other hentai. It's completely due to westernisation of vaguely related terminology as per >>22789

>>24313

So basically you're saying that drawing shaved girls lead them to draw child porn-like? that's just stupid

They could've just drawn regular girls but without any pubic hair