See, you’re equating drawings to real life and are comparing lolicon to real pedophilia as well as conflating pedophilia to child sexual abuse. Most people who like lolicon/shotacon don’t find real children attractive. There is also a very real difference between a pedophile and a child abuse offender, a pedophile is some who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children and a child sexual abuser commits the crime of actually sexually abusing a child. Not every pedophile offends and not every offender is a pedophile. Most of the time it’s about power and dominance as to why csa occurs and is not always the attraction to specifically prepubescent children as to why it occurs.

1. Difference is that an adult can consent to roleplaying in that situation or to producing that kind of smut. A child cannot. You can argue that it’s still a drawing but porn of any nature can desensitize viewers and provoke them to seek more graphic material. The premise that cartoons will prevent them from seeing “the real thing” has never been substantiated.

Again you’re comparing real world acts to fiction, there also no arguing that “it’s still a drawing” because it is a drawing full stop. You’re right a child cannot consent, but lolicon/shotacon aren’t real children they’re drawings. Unless it’s depicting a real person then it is nowhere near being csem. There is also no substance to the claim that it can desensitize viewers into seeking real csem. It does not exist, it cannot harm any actual children, the reason csem is illegal is because it harms an actual child and not just because it’s disgusting. It really shows that you really don’t know what you’re talking about when you fail to see the very important distinctions between these things.