Where is the age line for loli? 13? or 14?
I was gonna say i watch loli anime - Bamboo Blade, but I guess all the characters are in high school...

Lolitas have to be refering to girls thats are pre-pubescent (have not reached puberty). Or, it can also refer to girls under the age of concent/under-aged. Either way should give you a decent idea of the age range (13 or below would work for the most part), though I refer to the first or the combined of the 2 defintions given.
ex. High school girls can be under the age of concent, but have matured.

You braught up a good point... though i mentioned it in the body of the post, i forgot to include that detail of "age range" in the definition I used of Lolita up top in my first responding post... (perhaps the requested "drawn line" Omnidevil was refering to?) ...that may be where some of the confusion lied. I will change it.
*editing*

Defining and classing one person as a pedophile, regardless, is an insult.
Especially concerning on how many issues the world has seen for that word to be used to describe a person who leers at little girls and makes sex with them.

I would not even begin to describe that placing anyone before the scene and saying "Oh, pedo is fine, as long as you do only cartoon porn."

The world is not that forgiving last I checked, both sides concerned.

Omni, the concerns you addressed were already mentioned in my first post. Read it completely (again if you did read it) before replying again because:

Omnidevil

Defining and classing one person as a pedophile, regardless, is an insult.

I defined the condition that would make a person under the Pedophile category (one who has the pedophilia condition). I addressed the labeling issue and stated that it was not what I use to judge others or my intent to use it the same way "the not-so-forgiving" world/soceity/governments use it (i use it in the pure sense that it is defined as: X is a type of interest and someone who has X-type interest is called "X-ists" and specialized/specific interest A has the traits of X-type interests and they are a type of "X-ists"). How you wish to define those terms and apply it, I left up to you, but I gave the points of what and why I think that way.

Omnidevil

Especially concerning on how many issues the world has seen for that word to be used to describe a person who leers at little girls and makes sex with them.
...
The world is not that forgiving last I checked, both sides concerned.

I mentioned the EXACT same issue in my first post... Again, please just refer to my statement about the ignored "contiuum"/hiearchy. I do not support the "unforgiving world's" attitude (the instant ideas and fears generated) towards the mere mention of a "word".

Omnidevil

I would not even begin to describe that placing anyone before the scene and saying "Oh, pedo is fine, as long as you do only cartoon porn."

Again, stated in my first post. I do not judge the right and wrong. I leave that to the society you live in or whatever else. I brought out the argued points of both sides- the others, including issues you stated, and those similar to my overall view- and refuted the right-to-the-mind "fear and concern overkill" on this matter with the mere mention of "Pedo". I would think that at least on that issue, we think alike and should have had nothing to argue/differ on in that particular aspect. I never in any of my post here told anyone to go out and say "I am a pedophile, yay! Proud to be..." or anything of that nature (again, I knew about how the "unforgiving world" thinks). But I am saying that the condition exists and such "label" based on the condition's definition is not "not normal" as the way politics/governments, certain organizations, societies and/or communties makes it. Because of the way I use those definitions, I associate them together, and I do not carry the negative opinion that an organization or conservative communtiy would have about that "word" and related. I will re-read my post later (after I return home) because maybe i left out some words or did not explain something as I intended, which may be confusing you (and even others) if you (they) did read what I wrote.

Lastly:
The topic asked for opinions of what the viewer thinks of the lolis and lolicons placed with pedophiles (based on the dannychoo reference). Again, the way I define Pedophiles/pedophilia and the way I define what lolitas are and what lolicons are places them together. My answer was a blunt "yes"... especially if that is ALL one read. It isn't as blungeoning insulting if you read why I came to my conclusion and how I feel about it. I make no attempts to convince you I am right or that is the way TO THINK... I simply said that is the way I THINK. I clearly said you can define it how you want and use it how you want. Right or wrong was not the point I was expressing. My opinion and why I have such opinion was the point. If you are trying to stay stop my ways of labeling (even though this classfication I expressed is in the head and I do not go out and point and shout "pedo kill" or "pedo its ok"), you will have to give more than just "it offends me and others just because labeling is... etc.". Considering the way I use it (which i explained), I do not feel like it should offend anyone... and those who are offended are just too "sensitive" for me to lose sleep over about. If you had just restated your opinion with differing aspects from me on this matter, I would not respond. But you expressed TL.DR ("too long, didn't read") and then threw out some bits about being insulting and/or insulted, which for me it is "ironic" (in more than one way) that my post is in favor of the opinion you posted yourself in your first post (even if you differ with me in the factor of being hard-core against the labeling of people- mentally or publicly- of any sorts).

Well, I personally believe so. Its a little obvious it is meant to be that way, why else would it be called Lolita? Lolita is the girl from that Russian book, who was underage I believe. I mean, I find this completely wrong, but whatever floats your boat..

The term does not always have a sexual connotation, it is also a style of dress that I happen to like and wear. But if you look at anime/manga and you see a lolita character and think the are cute, all well and good. On the other hand if you start projecting that onto real children and start having sexual feelings for under aged persons then you need to have your head checked!

I know some morons that are sexually attracted to that kind of things, it is a fact that some people that kind of sick interest.
[Lolicons Right]
Most of that kind of people are just insane sex frustrated bastards and some are possibles or already active child harassers and rapers

I agree with cristiana, anyone like that need to have his head checked!

Hmm I resent being labelled a paedophile just because i'm a self confessed lolicon. Both side do have their merits, and I must say it makes for an interesting read :)I'm reluctant to step into this battlefield between the 2 intellects, but I feel compelled to write something to defend myself ^^

Perhaps the definition of a paedophile depends alot on the person itself. Probe53 defines paedophilia as a overall umbrella where lolicons fall under, that's his own definition of course. I shan't try to argue against that. But rather, I'd think under my own definition, that paedophilia refers to people who are sexually attracted to prepubescent children, it shouldn't include lolicons, who are attracted to the drawing and animation of child-like characters. I feel that those who are into in hentai animes/mangas featuring child-like characters are NOT to be considered lolicons. Perhaps the line between them is still rather grey, but I believe with time, the connotations which follow the words will slowly change.

Perhaps lolicons, as mentioned by Probe53 have repressed their sexual desires for prepubescent children. I won't try to argue with that as that field of studies always give me headaches. But so long it doesn't manifest itself as actively looking for child pornography, or stalking little children, they shouldn't be labelled as paedophiles.

Phew, writing all these was tough. I apologise if things didn't come out the way I intended, as my grasp of english isn't all that impressive. But I hope people would take my words into consideration. And don't condemn lolicons :)

I don't think loli (or shota for that matter) = pedo... That doesn't mean someone who likes loli can't be a pedophile, but being a lolicon doesn't automatically make someone a pedo... But even then,I think that it doesn't really matter just so long as no-one starts molesting little kids...

As long as fantasy and reality don't overlap, I think it's ok.

(note the dr. ten icon...)

I read that post from dannychoo's a while ago too. It's true that equating loli to paedophilia is definitely baseless accusation and offensive to lolicons. While I haven't watch loli anime like Moetan and Kodomo no jinkan myself, I have heard of their rather suggestive content and personally I find that disturbing.

It's natural to go "oh so cute" when we see kawaii young girls in anime. Girls in anime are meant to look appealing after all but if this liking is tainted by sexual thoughts I will feel it's sounding off the red light to the start of an unnatural and unhealthy obessesion. Innocence and cuteness of lolis shouldn't be linked to sexual fantasies. The idea just sounds wrong to me. But even if one does have that kind of preference, I doubt he/she should be labelled as paedo if he/she sticks to the 2D realm and keeps his/her actions in check, though I must say that feeding this form of lusting desires can possibly make one go down the wrong path, to the extent of bringing these desires to society, and realising them by stalking real underaged girls. However, I must stress this is just a possible scenario but unless it crosses the boundaries of 2D, loli art should not be equated to paedophilia, since the latter, in my opinion is a societal illness.

Just my two cents worth.

I personally like little girls very much, they are so-o cute. Girls nowadays grow up too fast that their cuteness is left often behind. I think it even might be natural for guys to be bit lolicons.

I don't think that Loli equels Pedo. Two very similar but yet different things.
--- --- ---
I hate so called loli-animes. They should be erased from this planet.
I really can't stand pedophiles who enjoy that kind of perverted stuff and think naughty thoughts. Urggh those guys! Watch AV and jerk off.

As a fan of loli i say there is a line between the two. Pedos are (usually) loli fans. but that doesn't not mean Loli fans are Pedos i have viewed Loli Hentai and been fine with it, but i have no feelings what so ever to children. It's not somehting i would publisize in Real life since many people have miss conceptions. but i think the two should be seperate and once a person moved into being attracted to real life children should they be considered dangerous, of course the questions is which loli fan is a pedo and which is just a loli fan, which again if i had a child i would keep them away from both, which is why i don't tell people what i'm interested in.

Hmm I resent being labelled a paedophile just because i'm a self confessed lolicon.

See what I mean?

I will edit this post later when I think of a good post to reply you.

Edit:

First, I am thoroughly impressed by the long post, the attention to detail in defining the ideal and thinking behind the points expressed and I must say, I rather am sorry for not taking the time before to fully understand what you have said.

Now, in my opinion, a pedophile, is a demonic term to be used on Lolita fans, which I believe should firmly and in fact, separately from the mainstream of thought that loli= pedo.

It has nothing to do with it, although such possibilities regardlessly intertwined with the twisted views of society, one should never and one society if given the choice, should never have to judge them based on face value.

i.e. Oh, you watch loli, therefore you are pedo.

The definition of pedophilia has long been debated, and often enough, it led to a general meaning = child porn, whether the arts be concern, anime and the likes of lolita and its personal fandom are rudely always affected by the conflicting views of both the lovers of the genre and the haters of the genre, namely, the public.

The public always views things by face value, and they usually have no business in dwelling on the subject (the guilty party, say a child molester) on his or her attempt and why the motive, because of such a way of portraying the imagery of the child molester, it came to conclusion, oh, so all child molesters are into lolis and child porn, understandable.

But those who have no intent, also get affected, and therefore labelled under the zone of Pedophiles, if not causing an insult, it causes a diversity or such a thing as putting the wrong subject in the wrong hands.

One should keep an open mind on how the term lolicon fans, lolicons are pedo at all.

We all know girls like cute things, we all know they like smooth skinned boys of female complexity and nature (yaoi) for example, because they watch that, do we consider that it is so that all girls have the natural tendency (strongly) to enjoy gay porn?

No, in fact, it is often revealed that the normal heterosexual female, considers gay porn as not to their tastes, rather, they enjoy the heterosexual form of entertainment.

This tells us that generalization of the term Lolicon for example, does not really amplify the fact that lolicons have potential to become pedophiles or should be labelled as one, which comes to my conclusion.
That we should consider thinking on the thought first, before we can label them as such, there is a fine line where the enjoying of forbidden fantasies are limited to that is what it is, fantasies and nothing more, and therefore should have no business, even if brought to the real life, a lolicon be labelled as a pedophile or pedophilliac in nature.

Of course, again, that is debatable.

I feel like fantasizing sex with anime little girls is just a 1st step in being an actual pedo... and it's just creepy. ._.;;

Also, pedophile is a legal term meaning someone who has had sexual relations with a child, not someone who fantasizes about it.

I like anime like Ichigo Mashimaro that some people would say is loli, but I never thought of it that way until other people said things like that. :o

I think one should define the lines they want to transverse at first, there is a line drawn clearly between what we think is cute, and not pedo.
(in before shitstorm on /a/ 4chan over the debate on cute not pedo)

the whole idea is there so that you can define yourself.
I reckon it is not the first instance anyone who watches lolita anime fantasizes about having sex with the cute characters, heck, even I do that, but I still like them big.
There is a line drawn between cute and being pedo, if I like something small and dainty, however girly and almost insanely pedo-like it can be, can't I be safely detached from the pedo crowd? after all, I am just a consumer, I don't think my consumation of a particular genre of entertainment can label me as a pedo, or in the case of watching yaoi, does it make me gay?

Can't I just watch things because I want to now? without say, something the same as capitalism? I must comply to a format in order to be labelled?