This answer was uneeded, then it would have been just a joke. Now it isn't.

I'm not the MC, and they are just pixels, not actual, dead, or alive people.

I'm more "disturbed" by the fact of using a little girl as a soldier than by the fact that she's a putative member of the MC's hàrem - a hàrem that includes his own aunt, I should remind you?

I wish the world were peaceful enough for us to have time to care about the virtual feelings of fictional characters, but that's frankly not the case.
I don't even care about the feelings of real people if they're not my close ones, so in a manga/manhwa/manhua, you can imagine I couldn't care less.
It's FICTION.

P.S.: Your signature promotes pròstitution. Maybe you should sweep your own doorstep first, no? 😁 Luckily, I don't care and I understand second-degree humor, so it surely won't bother me, but it's to show you that virtue signaling (or anything close to it, even in just one area) requires being more than blameless on ALL subjects. Including tiniest details.

I've never claimed to be a peaceful person - my signature will explain the details.
I've also never claimed not to be vindictive, especially when I feel attacked - actions have consequences, a reality too often forgotten nowadays.
And above all, I would never claim to be perfect enough to spontaneously and gratuitously judge people, except of course those who come to pick a fight with me, or to pìss me off... Especially when a remark is obviously humorous, even if it's dark or second-degree humor. I have a strong dislike for "first-degree" people, like the woke.

Your FIRST message was funny. The second one is clearly superfluous, and aggressive to boot.

As for your signature... You REALLY don't see the problem? Basically, you're accusing me of pèdophìlia, while declaring you're ready to sell your àss to another (gày) man to get in return a sèx slave and money... So, pròstitution and human tràfficking are celebrated in your signature, and then you come looking for faults in others? Without proofs, and despite a clearly humorous message?
That's... special, to say the least.

You should not try to kìnkshàme people on such a website if you can't stand a backdraft. Because you're on a site hosting numerous pìrated works, many of which are far outside the legality in most countries around the world, so you're far from being perfect enough to set yourself up as a paragon of virtue.

For now, I'm still very calm, but if you want, we can switch gears and continue the discussion in a much less cordial tone. It's up to you.

 Grooming is a form of abuse that involves manipulating someone to gain their trust and make them more vulnerable to exploitation. It can be used to sexually abuse, exploit, or traffic children and young people, or to force vulnerable ADULTS to engage in sexual activities. In our current case I was using the first part. I believe grooming is far worse.
I have a GF also this signature was a while back, but to explain what waifu definition I am using here (facetious: a wife) nothing about being submissive, actually perfer a agressive partner as my current GF is.
IDK why you assume I ever try to play a parangon of virtues, I can overlook small things but there are things I have to poke fun at people, that is a huge difference than trying to play the pure angel.
As for using Game of Thrones terrible usage honestly never watched or read it, also as I said before it wasn't meant to be serious. This is online you can't see/hear sarcasim in what people say, so always take it with a grain of salt.

Where on earth did you see that grooming involves adults as victims? It's used for children, and more rarely adolescents, but not adults - you would use "toxic/abusive relationship" instead.

You won't teach me what a waifu is, nor how she is fictional, unusually ideal, especially concerning sweetness, beauty, loyalty, and sùbmission or idolization towards the weeb, not to mention the escapism that comes with it... As for me, it's something foreign since I lost my virginity, but to each their own.

For pròstitution, there is NO notion of frequency involved. A single instance still counts as pròstitution (again, a dictionary will help you face reality).

Nevertheless, you seem to have serious problems with definitions: have you ever tried looking in a dictionary or an encyclopedia before using a word you don't know? Try it, it works wonders for the quality of conversations with people... Stop twisting reality to fit your delusions: you are the ONLY one using these "definitions" for these terms, and it looks suspiciously like someone trying to salvage their argument with poor excuses.

Once again, your FIRST message was funny. The second, much less so, and entirely due to your stùpidity (or ignorance) – misunderstanding a definition, misusing a GIF, and then continuing with utter stùpidity to insist on faulty definitions when a simple search in a dictionary or an encyclopedia - not on Google - would have clearly indicated that it was time to shùt up.

To make any further agruments easier lets get a couple of thing straight
I used multiple sites such as urban dictionary, Oxford English dictionary, and merriam webster for the meaning of words
All of which either described a prostitue as either s** work, which would mean you are doing it more than once. This goes with the meaning of pride, which I got vauge meaning of them which usually intails the pleasure of actions one does, or to feel proud about one's self, or a sense of one's own proper dignity or value, it is also widely believe that only you can define your own pride, as far as I can find from 10 mintues of checking what others think.
I am also using the words in their most used term except for waifu (I prefer to use it this way instead of just saying a wife because its a preference thing.)
Assume that I use multiple sources for things I research.
Don't use physical dictionaries since they are most often wrong about dictions of word/ outdated/ or misunderstood the meanings of words. same with encyclopedias.
SInce you keep saying others would disagree with me and to also prove that I ain't the only one I am going to make a post about this subject to see what others think. 

Funny, on Merriam-Webster, entry for "pròstitution" says "the act or practice of engaging in sèxual relations for money". No mention of frequency. LII (american law) also says NOTHING about frequency. Everyone would understand that even ONCE is pròstitution, but you.
For pride, only one is important, "reasonable self-esteem : confidence and satisfaction in oneself", that was an evidence - but for you, despite it's the FIRST meaning usually found. It doesn't need a Nobel Prize to understand that there is no pride in selling yourself. What other think is IRRELEVANT, in particular if they're ignorant of basic definitions.

Sure, a wife? A coerced marriage is SO MUCH cooler than slàvery... 🙄 Using "waifu" on a manga website could NEVER leads to misunderstandings, right?

Unlike what you think, paper dictionaries are the reference. And for such things, definitions didn't change for decades, to not say centuries. You can search wherever you want, result will be the same, and you CANNOT use the "definition" some ignorants think as right as a "reference"... Otherwise, you'll pretend that Earth is flat starting tomorrow.

But you still avoid the MAIN problem, knowing YOUR accusations towards me in your second message... You can try any fallacious discussion, I won't forget to remind you the ROOT problem.

Wow, that's a long way to go!

First, you can check the two dragons in chapters 10 and 27, they have quite the same physique and attitude towards the MC. If you often meet "little girls" dressed this way IRL, then you're the one who should be jailed.
Second, it started about a death / bone dragon potentially tamed.
Third, I'm not the one making these dragons "age" in their human form when leveling. The author does. Or maybe you're more into her first form, the animal one? Are you a furry in the closet?
Fourth, they are... pixels. Not actual people.
Finally, all women in this manhua are just built to be harem's members - including MC's aunt.

And the real, massive, argument is: you're reading this manhua, too, past the "problematic" chapters (so you seems to like it) and on a pirate website, stoling money from both author and scanlators.
Don't even try to make you virtuous: none of you two is "good" or "moral". I'm sure that YOUR search history is way darker than mine, since you seems to go on Reddit while I don't, for the least.

as you said it doesn't directly state occurance so it can be interpreted as a one time thing or as a multi occurance thing, which proves my previous statement about you jumping into one explaination.
every thing that comes out of you mouth only proves to show that you will only believe in the truth that makes you correct even if it doesn't apply to the current situation. As you keep repeating you keep using your paper dictionary which history has proven to not always be right all the time, time changes as so do meaning of words the fact you can't understand this astounds me. As for the ROOT of the problem stemed from the pedo joke you made so you yourself are the actual problem and you keep trynna to defend you ill tasted jokes like bro what is wrong with you long story short even if it is fictional doesn't mean your jokes are gonna come out as what you wanted but instead of accepting this you choose to attack me for no reason.
Honestly this whole encounter has been fun and all but I rather not involve myself with a potential pedo who won't try to force his belief onto others any further good day to you.

Oh yes, I am SO traumatized by your wit, if only you knew... 🙄
However, that you're a dàmn moralizing woke who doesn't own up to it, that's a certainty. 😎

1) No, you're just too dùmb to read a complete sentence without losing context. I said "online dictionaries... based on a paper edition". So NOT Wiktionary, for example, or Urban Dictionary.

2) Wrong again. The law is the law, it is objective and NOT subject to interpretation, just like the dictionary - you can possibly choose a meaning if there are multiple, but you can't twist one to your liking. Sentences pronounced are subject to interpretation, such as mitigating circumstances or criminal irresponsibility, but certainly not the qualification of the crime.

The dictionary states what it is, and the law gives the consequences. Neither mentions frequency, so doing it ONCE validates the act - and, legally speaking, the possible consequences that follow. I didn't mention comparing it to mùrder without reason - the definition and the law concerning hòmicides also don't mention the frequency of the act... According to your "logic" 🤨, how many people do you have to kìll to become a mùrderer? 😒

The law in my country (in Europe) states that even occasionally selling your body is considered pròstitution. The dictionary in my native language also does not indicate the frequency of the act to define it. We can play this game with all languages and laws, and it will be the SAME - otherwise, prove with a reference dictionary and a public legal site that it's not true: don't shift the burden of proof.

You are just an idiòt who can't read or understand a SIMPLE text. Reality and facts do not bend to your delusions, unlike what wokes like you think.  
You can play the victim all you want, if you sell your àss for money, even just once, you're a whòre, end of story.

You know what it seems you refuse to learn some sense, you say proof this proof that when it fits for you but when you accuse someone you do not provide any evidence or reasoning just baseless accusation fuc**** dumbass trynna use big as a way to sound "intelligent" btw it doesn't just makes you seem like a try hard. All in all no matter what facts I bring up you will just overlook it and keep arguing, and don't say some BS about me doing it first I was only copying you since it seems you don't want to admit your own wrongs
also PS I ain't this woke whatever that is supposed to mean idk if it is supposed to be an isult or are you saying I just woke up I have been awake since 6 am so whatever.
also that last few sentences work perfect for you since you basically started btw you make a dark joke on the internet be prepared to revice some critique, basically grow up man child
but first let get a helper to identify all of your contradiction my friend because just glossing over everything you have said in this comment tread there are more than just a few. this is with the help of a lawyer btw and an AI categorizer tool there were many other stuff but it was mostly just repeats of things he said before just got this today aswell.
Moral Concern vs. Fictional Nature:
The writer expresses concern about the use of a "little girl as a soldier" and the inclusion of characters in a harem, implying a level of moral concern for these fictional elements.
However, they also state that they don’t care about the feelings of real or fictional characters, emphasizing that it is "FICTION" and that their focus is not on the morality of these characters.
Self-Contradiction on Virtue:
The writer criticizes the other person's signature for promoting prostitution and human trafficking while asserting that they themselves do not care about such issues, suggesting a level of hypocrisy.
Judgment and Moral Superiority:
They accuse the other person of being hypocritical and moralizing while simultaneously admitting their own "vindictive" nature and lack of perfection. This suggests a contradictory stance on moral superiority.
Understanding of Definitions:
Thewriter argues that dictionaries do not specify frequency for terms like "prostitution," but they also claim that legal interpretations are consistent with this view.
They insist on the correctness of their own definitions and dismiss alternative interpretations, which contradicts their earlier criticism of others for misunderstanding definitions.
Engagement with Content:
They criticize the other person for reading and enjoying a manhua with morally questionable elements but do not acknowledge their own participation in the same activity. This shows a contradiction between their moral stance and their actions.
Aggression vs. Calmness:
The writer claims to be calm and non-aggressive while simultaneously issuing threats and aggressive language. This demonstrates a contradiction between their stated demeanor and their actual behavior.
Accuracy of Terms:
They argue about definitions and legal implications while dismissing the other person's perspectives, showing a contradiction between claiming to understand and apply definitions accurately and their own rigid stance.
you know what this all started with a misunderstanding you do understand that my comment  thats grooming man  was not to accuse you it was more of a critique not meant to be funny and not meant shame you in any way, just a critique to a bad joke. so for that I am sorry for not being more clear with my intentions as I am sure you are for jumping the gun a little to much.

Too late, too insincere.

As I said, and it was clear in my answer to it, your FIRST message was funny. Too bad, you can't control your behavior after that...

You dismissed these points about:
- Virtue signaling someone while not being fully clean yourself. Please give a link to an online REFERENCE dictionary and law text proving YOUR point about pròstitution. Although, personally, I couldn't care less about your kìnks, I have an utter disdain for witch hunts and criticisms made by people who have NO right to lecture others on a subject. You CAN criticize me, but be CERTAIN you're better than me when you do - you'll find my attitude is very different then.
- Using little girls as soldiers/meat shields - this seems to not bother you even a little. I don't care: I can perfectly manage my temporary suspension of disbelief. I don't read fiction to see reality, I have the news channels for that. And I don't search reality in fiction either.
- Chapters 10 and 27, or the incèstuous hàrem with MC's aunt.
- Reading this manhua TOO. The difference between you and me? I don't impose MY morals.
- Your signature as "old", and before you got a GF - however, you still have the same, you just rephrased it, trying to express a pèrversion in PC terms.

I'm used to such an attitude, it's a classic fallacy used by people like you when they're cornered: either they focus on a minor unrelated detail to avoid what makes them uncomfortable, or they throw an argumentative mille-feuille as a chaff countermeasure.
Unfortunately for you, I also have a habit of not forgetting much and taking pleasure in bringing up the points swept under the rug to show the underlying bad faith.
Strictly personally, I advise you to drop it. Man up.

Not my fault if you use the wrong emoji/meme and virtue signal people. Unlike you, I never claimed to be perfect: I'm vindictive when someone attacks me - and you don't want to imagine how I am when someone targets my wife or kids.

Now, either you reply to all the previous points you dismissed, or you drop it. You aren't in the "right", and you can't even sustain your viewpoint properly. Despite what you think, dictionaries were made to allow people to COMMUNICATE together. You are NOT allowed to "interpret" what words mean according to your delusions. The law could, because sometimes the law uses different meanings for some words, but even here, it can't sustain your point... And the law was also made to allow people to live together. Both are OBJECTIVE, not subjective, and your feelings are irrelevant.