If you think lolicon is a problem, then you should take issue with violence in video games!
Fictional violence and pornographic material are not the same. It's a false equivalence. The fictional violence you commit isn't real. It stays in the game world. Your attraction to images of children is in your brain.
Violence is also rarely the thing that makes games fun. It's an aesthetic, but still dominates games because the ability to blow things up without consequence is something you can do in games, not in the real world.
What actually makes games fun to play is the way they respond to your actions, the goals they set for you, the skinner box reward/punishment schedules in them.
You could remove the aesthetic of violence, blood, and death from Call of Duty by turning it into a game about airsoft, and it would remain mostly as fun.
Google Earth is the biggest open world "game" out there. You can go almost anywhere in the world, but all you can do is look around. Nobody plays google earth for a 100 hours like Skyrim.
It's not a game. There are no external rewards for exploration. There's only the intrinsic reward of what you find and see, which isn't enough to motivate people to explore for hours.
If they introduced restrictions: You can't fly everywhere, you need to find a road to location X, or explore an area and find objects hidden in the streetview, it would instantly become an actual "game".
If you had a game where you can commit endless, realistic, visceral violence without any rewards, it would just be a novelty without any staying power.
I would absolutely take issue with people who gain sadistic pleasure or get erect while playing a violent game, but I heavily doubt the experience of gunning down characters in a video game is enough to satisfy a sadistic pleasure.
There is a way to achieve sadistic pleasure in games: trolling and griefing in multiplayer, but that's you harassing, insulting, and bullying real people, not NPCs. If someone invested hours to build a house in Minecraft and you pour lava all over it, you're destroying that investment of another real person's time. That's why they get upset, even though "it's just a game".
You can train a neural network to play and beat video games, but you can't really teach it to get aroused by lolicon art. That's because that arousal and attraction is a reaction in your brain, not in the bitmap or piece of paper. It's a part of who you are.
It's in the real world, not in a game program, and normal people find it very disturbing that you have that reaction in response to that stimuli.
You might think:
"if this was a real child, I wouldn't be turned on by this!"
"I just jack off to lolicon pictures that used a petite adult woman that looks like a child as reference and drew them as even more child looking!"
"I wouldn't be comfortable with knowing a real child was harmed!"
You might even say:
"It's just a fantasy, I know that I would never do this in the real world!".
I understand what you're saying. I do hear you.
But here's the problem:
The people who want to do it in the real world are also going to say that.
I'm sorry if you're too autistic to understand the fact that people can lie. When all you can say is "It's just a fantasy", we have no guarantee you're telling the truth.
From the perspective of others, you're indistinguishable from the people who are an actual threat to children, people who actually have urges to harm real children.
There's also the risk that as you consume that content, you'll need more and more extreme material to satisfy your urges. It might never spill over into real offenses, but what guarantee do you have of that?
Let's imagine you're a principal and you find out one of your teachers has a lolicon collection. What do you do? Believe them when they say it's just a fantasy and let them keep working, or you fire them and launch an investigation to make sure they haven't done some weird shit?
What do you think is going to happen if you let them keep their job, they offend, and it comes out in an investigation that you knew about their lolicon collection? You'd lose your job, and you would be held partially liable.
It makes much more sense to treat them as a danger and not allow them in a position of power over children.
If you're going to say that lolicon is good because it's an outlet for these people to not offend, you're kind of admitting that it is a form of pedophilia, which is all I've been trying to claim.
What about the issue of child predators using this material to groom children? Is that something you've taken into consideration? That's one of the potential harms of this material being widely available.