Common pro-censorship arguments

Making this because I see them so much that I feel that it’s necessary to address them so anybody else here can destroy them too.

Loli/shota pornography and child sex dolls encourage, normalize, glorify, and desensitize people to child sex abuse and endanger actual children and should be banned.

There is no credible, scientific evidence that conclusively supports this claim, and claims that do, usually come under intense scrutiny.
Pornography and its effects have been under the microscope for just about half a century, and, to this day, the scientific community has yet to conclusively or affirmatively declare pornography of any kind to be a hazard or risk factor, or to have any causative association with instances of real abuse, providing the material itself isn’t the product of abuse.
Also, the normalization argument is invalid because those who use the term in this context are misappropriating it.
What they mean to really say is desensitize, which is also not true.
We already have empirical evidence which suggests that the human mind internalizes information based on the context or method by which its presented. We impart fiction as fiction, and reality as reality.
We interpret a video game or movie depicting intense violence, crime, abuse, and gore as “just a movie”, or a cartoon of an obese pre-pubescent child sexually pleasuring a dog as “just South Park”.

Pornography, including deviant pornography, is no different in this regard.

Lolicon/shotacon and child sex dolls are extremely offensive and damaging to the moral fabric of our communities.

How so?
To a lot of communities, pedophilia is a pretty taboo and sensitive subject, with the welfare of children taking priority. If the “normalization” of violence, murder, rape, etc caused by depicting and glorifying it in media didn’t cause everybody to become actual ruthless, immoral murderers, rapists, and criminals, then why would loli/shota pornography or child sex dolls be expected to do so?
Communities are just groups of individuals who share something in common.
Art and other material are a reflection of the interests and ideals of the people from within those communities, and clearly such materials have a demand. You do more harm to your community by denying the fact that these interests exist and punishing those within it simply for having or expressing it because it innately weakens your grasp on the truth. It’s better to allow it and build a rapport with these groups and build an understanding that allows all parties to live coexist comfortably with the goal of preventing any harm being done in the first place.
This isn’t to say that pedophilia isn’t a concern or should be accepted or that children should be put at risk nor does it mean that it’s not an issue, but it does ensure that everybody’s rights are preserved and protected.
Just as you have your rights and interests, so do they. And to attack their rights is to also undermines yours, whether you know it yet or not.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder characterized by an interest in children, it is not a sexual orientation and it should not be encouraged or exacerbated.

That’s not entirely correct. The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-5) delineated paraphilia from a paraphilic disorders, emphasizing distress and impairment as key points when diagnosing a disorder.
Pedophilia is no exception to this rule, as the DSM-5 clearly acknowledges a difference between pedophilic disorder from a pedophilic ‘sexual orientation’.
People who consume loli/shota or sex dolls are not likely to be pedophiles with pedophilic disorder, nor does that make them a risk towards children just for having it. Studies and surveys have shown key differences between pedophiles who abuse and exploit children and pedophiles who do not, often finding comorbidities with psychiatric and social impairments to be more closely associated with the act of abuse, suggesting a minor coincidental relationship, rather than a significant causative one.
Moreover, pedophilia isn’t a condition that can be sedated, cured, or really “treated”. It’s a recurring sexual interest, a sexual orientation. People are born this way, and trying to “fix”, “cure”, or suppress these thoughts or urges is not healthy or beneficial, in much the same way that conversion therapy doesn’t work on and is extremely damaging to gay people.
This doesn’t mean it’s preferable that one has a sexual interest in children, not by any means, but if there’s little to no harm in allowing them to express and indulge without causing harm, why ban it?
There already exists a well-established theory in psychology called the “catharsis theory”, which essentially claims that more pornography means less sex crime.
This has been suggested to be due to it serving as a safe outlet and other things, but the preventative value of pornography is definitely understood.

It should also be noted that about 50% of those who sexually abuse children fit the diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder, or even have a sexual interest in children, as, like I pointed out previously, a pedophilic sexual interest is not likely to cause CSA.

Lolicon/shotacon and child sex dolls are immoral.

So what? That’s just an opinion. What’s more immoral is undermining your own moral opinions and choices by imposing them on others, especially in a forceful manner, especially in a way that deliberately violates their rights.
That’s exactly what they said to gay men, from both a religious perspective in addition to exploiting fears associated with the HIV/AIDS virus.

Sources about to be added.



We’re studying the preventative aspect of it, but we do know that an inverse correlation exists between the existence, consumption, and availability of this type of material and the rates of sex crimes, as well as the types of crimes being committed!
Why else would we see lower CSA and rape rates where pornography is legal and accessible? It doesn’t make sense to claim that it shouldn’t be banned in spite of this fact. You’re only acting on moral instinct and that’s what’s so problematic about your position.