So what I go to one lollipop convention and suddenly everyone thinks I'm a registered republican? Sounds a bit fucked up to me.

This thread is a firestorm but I'm going in, wish me luck.

I think is a connotations game here. Lolicon have less bad connotations than paedophile.

The world paedophile makes you think of a criminal, someone who have content that was made hurting children. Someone who probably has hurt children themselves. Despite the more profound consideration that a paedophile might or might not act on their impulses, the connotation on the word is that.

Then there is the word lolicon. That word have a different connotation. Here you think about some anime geek with terabytes of drawn naked kids. But you don't tend to associate their behavior with real kids. Regardless on the possibility that lolicons do hurt children or also have material that hurt children. The connotation of the word is that their obsession only focus on the drawn naked children.

Most people in general consider drawn pictures of children less harmful or even not harmful at all compared to actually abusing kids. So one word really doesn't have the same weight as another.

Then, we have the question. Using a word with more/less weight is justified here or not?

We all now some paedophiles have rebranded themselves as MAPS, precisely trying to shake of the bad connotations of paedophile.

Is this the same case? Is using lolicon trying to evade the "paedophile tag" or is it something actually different?

I get the disgusting feeling about lolicon. But personally I do think is essentially different to what we normally think about a paedophile. If someone told me "X is a paedophile" I would as "so are they in jail?". But if someone tells me that "X is q lolicon" I won't assume that they have done something deserving jail time, I'll probably be wondering if they are also a paedophile, but the fact that I think of it as an "addition" means to me that those are not the same.

On another differentiate fact. I think it's not uncommon for people to accidentally see lolicon, it has happened to me. Looking for some yaoi you might end up opening a lolicon manga, or maybe you watch an anime and it has some lolicon tones. The normal reaction is not liking it and move on, but it's not a traumatic experience. I have luckily never watch CP but if somehow it was accidentally showed to me I think it would be a traumatic experience that probably would scar me for life.

So, on the bases that I think different things when I think about each of those words I do not think that's an accurate translation.

Then there is the question to people who do think those two terms are the same. Do you truly think those two terms refer to the same thing or you just feel so disgusted by lolicon that you want the term lolicon to be viewed with as much disgust as people see paedophile?

Sounds about right.

When it works. it works.

facts

In this context, the translation is absolutely correct in my opinion. I can't really think of a context where "lolicon" being translated to pedophile would be incorrect. -con like siscons, brocons, etc are complexes or obsessions. Lolicon is a complex or obsession with, drawn or not, prepubescent minors.

Loli, not lolicon, can refer to both an individual who looks like the target of a lolicon (a prepubescent minor), or is short for Lolita fashion, which is meant to be a cute fashion style inspired by Victorian-era dress with archetypes like goth-loli.

For those wondering why Japan, a very shame based culture, feels more accepting of this, and why it seemingly appears in anime/manga culture so much, CSAM possession was legal, technically, up to 2014. CSAM production and dissemination only started being legislated in 1999, with much pressure from the west. Again, it is absolutely abhorrent and a crime, but culturally in Japan, many feel they are being forced to adapt at a rapid pace. There's a tangential relation between western conservatives and Japan when it comes to acceptance and cultural change (I wasn't referring to pedocon theory, but hey, it's a theory like gravity at this point with it being proven each passing month.)

Bonsai Pop's video on the Rurouni Kenshin mangaka goes into detail on this as he was found with a massive collection of this material. Which, again, was legal for him to own 3 years prior (he was arrested in 2017) regardless of how ethically abhorrent it was. Which it absolutely is. I believe his case was a case of hurt people hurt people in that he was abused as a minor and developed his complex. He never directly harmed children as far as we know, but he did own a large CSAM collection, which absolutely furthers a climate in which exploitation thrives. It's believed he was likely being used as an example by the state given how public the arrest was while how minor the punishment was.