Looking into Schediaphiles

This is something which is mentioned a lot, but which otherwise outside of the community seems to be largely overlooked. Some people report it as an attraction to cartoons, partly due to the aesthetics of it.

Some even claim to be exclusive schediaphiles who are not interested in anything else.

I’m technically a schediaphile since I’m a furry.

As far as I know of, the attraction isn’t officially recognized by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association. I do not even think it’s been a topic of discussion with the two. Likely because it’s a new thing but it’s damn sure real.

In saying that, when it comes to paraphilia’s, there is no definition that requires the EXCLUSIVE attraction to X. You can have said paraphilia but have some interest in the thing outside of your main attraction.

Two paraphilias and two sexual orientations. Heterosexual pedophile (I think it’s getting weaker tbh, it’s worse if I’m stressed), schediaphile and autopedophile.

Some are exclusive and many are non-exclusive.

It isn’t really something to be ashamed of, especially if a fixation on cartoons can help divert people off real children, a cartoon child is just a drawing after-all. If there was a way to reliably train people to have that disposition, then that could be highly beneficial in child protection.

One of the weird phenomena reported is that you can be attracted to body types and physiques completely unlike those you would be attracted to in reality. For instance, someone who is into lolicon might not necessarily be a pedophile, but someone more interested into the aesthetics of it.

1 Like

I would say there have always been people who are not attracted to other people but attracted to fantasy ideas of other people, or just fantasies in general. Schediaphiles would just be a subcategory of these types of people. But there are obviously people who like both cartoons and real people, so making it it’s own exclusive subgroup gets kinda messy.

I also want to say since blii mentioned “someone who is into lolicon might not necessarily be a pedophile” almost no people into loli are pedophiles. I want that to be very clear. There are some pedophiles who like loli or shota, but the majority of people who are into loli, shota and fiction in general are not into real children at all, and the majority of pedophiles are not into fiction. They are two categories that rarely overlap. People who are attracted to real children and/or fiction have different behaviors and psychology than those who are attracted only to cartoons or fictional children. For example, there are lots of people who are not pedophiles, but into their appropriate-age partner and into shota/loli. An attraction to fantasy children does not translate to pedophilia. Only the attraction to real children counts, and even an attraction to realistic fantasy children gets into iffy territory, because they may still be repulsed to the idea of real children as a concept. People who age play have detailed and sometimes realistic fantasies, but are not necessarily pedophiles, which is why this whole thing devolves into thought-policing where we’re worried about people’s thoughts and not their actions.

I don’t think we could condition people to be attracted to anything on purpose reliably or ethically, because that’s basically conversion therapy. The way fetishes and attraction develop in people is too complex to intentionally push it in any direction, and there are ethical issues with it because all fetishes and attractions can exist without being a threat to others so long as people are taught how to be safe about their sexuality, so trying to change what someone is attracted to is just a type of thought policing, because attraction is not action. The idea someone needs to act out their sex fantasy “for real” comes from entitlement to sex, which is why we see more men act out than women.

What we can do is teach people that having fantasies is okay, but acting out fantasies always has to be done in a safe and consensual way, and some fantasies simply cannot be acted out the way we want.
I have seen maps make consensual relationships where they roleplay their fantasies out with each other as this doesn’t require attraction to each other, or other maps may enjoy written fiction because imagining the real images is important for their fantasy. We can teach them that these ways are safe ways to enjoy their sexuality. Maps are not the only group who cannot act out their fantasies to a T. The trans community has issues with this, and so do BDSM mutilation or rape-fetishist types. It’s not something without solutions, people just need to be determined to try and commit to never hurting others, as that’s unacceptable.

Really, the world has to stop thought policing, because people who are only into thought-stuff are harmless, and people who are genuinely attracted would benefit from being allowed to exist in a safe, sex-positive way through role-play and fantasy in general, even if it’s not specifically cartoons.


Yes, a lolicon who is exclusively schediaphilic here, that’s me ^^" Which obviously excludes me from being a pedophile. And it seems that I don’t have much to add to people here, you all seems to have understand how that works. Perhaps what I can reinforce is that we like lolis, not children. If we were attracted to children why would we fantasize with lolis instead? :confused: Like, the “work” to fantasize anything is the same ^^"