So a person blocked me after I made an argument to try to keep me from trying to counter/respond to him. Talk about cowardice.
I said this: ""Shota" doesn't always mean yaoi. Unless if you say "Shota yaoi".
The word "shota" alone DOES NOT always mean yaoi, it can just refer to the term of young boys. That's like saying "loli can also mean yuri" no it isn't.
All that journal you posted just re-enforced what I and the stamp maker said. Except that what I think the journal also says is that the words "shotacon" and "shota" are two different things. No "shota" is just SHORT for "shotacon" as far as I know.
But another identification is that "shotacon" means someone who is a fan of shota. But I'm not going to use that term because I did research and my terminology is right. ' "Shotacon" is a theme for young anime boys, sometimes "shota" for short.'
Plus you said "the stamp maker is the one brainless" no he isn't, he knows the facts of appearances that turn people on. When it comes to fiction the APPEARANCES matter the MOST. You're the one being biased.
Just watch these videos they will explain what I'm saying in DETAIL:
You said this: "Ever watch Ouran High School you twit? HONEY IS A SHOTA!! THERE IS ALSO ONE IN FRUITS BASKET! BOTH HAVE NO YAOI IN IT!! MY JOURNAL IS WHAT SHOTA ACTUALLY IS!"
I know when people say "shotacon" or "lolicon" that it can mean people who are fans of those themes but I like to use those terms for the themes themselves as longer versions of "shota" and "loli".
But your response, I know those two shows and I know those characters, yes they look underage but THAT IS THE POINT. What are YOU SAYING? Are you saying that their actual age is legal age, but they look underage? Is that what you're saying? If that's what your point is then that won't stop people from becoming pedophiles if they get TURNED ON by the image/shape/form of the character because the character LOOKS YOUNG. That is the point.
All your journal mostly does is explain how it ISN'T the same as yaoi, and to tell us what shota OBVIOUSLY IS.
But your journal DOES NOT defend how it can't link someone becoming a pedophile if they get TURNED ON by it, the same should be said for loli(con).
If you were defending shota(con) from being linked with pedophilia then you would try to do the same for lolicon.