Punishing crimethink, I see.
In the U.S., pornography in itself is not unlawful at the federal levels, but, let's say, if you're caught with cartoon pornography with drawn depictions of sexually suggestive children, you're typically in violation of state obscenity laws, which generally are all in line with the Miller test from some '70s Supreme Court case: the federal level of determining whether or not an expression can be labeled as obscene. The specifics in those state statutes on obscenity differ from state to state, but quite typically they don't want you possessing anything that is or looks indistinguishable from a minor and is portrayed in a sufficient enough sexually suggestive manner. The argument against obscenity in lower courts follows the Miller test: does it have any artistic, literary, scientific, or political value, can the average person today find the work altogether sexually suggestive, and does it just outright, blatantly describe sexual conduct as per specific state obscenity laws (is it "patently offensive"). All of the criteria must be met for it to be obscene and therefore illegal.
You can write or draw some dreamy, suggestive things and they could be perfectly legal in your state, over here in the U.S. I could write about a petit(e) young adult who "just turned" 18 years old, described to have youthful features, a childish voice, an alluring naivete of the unfortunate ways of the world, and an affinity for things others would describe as innocent and immature. And that would get a number of people's rocks off. That's legal to write, because it is not patently offensive, you just personally decided to relate this character as childish, despite being a legal adult. If I can legally have sex with an 18-year-old who just finished some late onset puberty and acts cutesy innocent, I can write about it, too.
There are fictional stories about "non-consensual" sex as well out there, but how easy is it to make it so that the person comes to enjoy it at the end? That's usually how it goes, the victim gets fucked until they love it and ask for more, and then it comes off as if the ends justify the means, or maybe the receiver gave hesitant, sober, non-coerced consent in the first place, which would not violate anything, as it is still consent, despite making it up as if it wasn't. And hell, regardless of those tweaks, if you write it fancifully or poignantly enough, it can be argued for being literary. Yes, books like Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita in my state, I can read openly. I can go to an adult store and buy porn videos of porn stars acting out rape scenes, and it's obviously legal because it's contractual, and the actors are disclaimed to all be 18 or older. In that case, it's not a real incident, it's merely role-play between consenting adults who want to portray their sex as otherwise. Just keep it in the house and you won't be violating any public statutes on obscenity.
Fake, virtual depictions of crime are called "victimless crimes", because no one is being harmed. And if so, good. No one is being hurt. Like someone else mentioned prior, we have games where we can murder other people, and actual murder is illegal, and yet they are protected in America as freedom of expression with artistic value--yes, even Postal 2, where I can take a steaming piss on Gary Coleman and then dismember him, has some level of artistic value (although subversive) as considered by some big name critics at the time, though retailers also had the freedom to disagree and not stock it whatsoever. Yet still, other illegal crimes are treated as more taboo in the same medium. Can these things groom? Yes, there is always potential to groom a vulnerable, suggestible mind, but unless you go out and act on it, unless you harm another, unless the art you are distributing is the depiction of an actual, traceable minor, or your story is in reality a confession to an illegal crime, that is treading on the rights of others, and you must be punished for it. Otherwise, I say have at it, but I think the Miller test for obscenity is a fair one for state statutes to follow, anyway.
These paraphernalia already exist. Decriminalizing it only changes its status from a crime by which you can be prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for heavily into an act in which your penalty is greatly lessened or is allowed up to a certain regulatory limit. Legalizing it makes it perfectly allowable by law, period. Decriminalization or legalization will absolutely not change the instances in which the acts occur, though it will be reflected in crime reports to be far less because they no longer classify as a serious crime or a crime altogether, respectively. The people who rape do it because they can, and they don't give a shit regardless. Legal status of available suggestive materials has nothing to do with actually carrying out an action against another.
