>>58042935
Legality is usually, but not always, correlated with morality. After all, slavery was legal/acceptable for thousands of years. I don't know this for a fact, but I would wager that in some instances lawmakers operate on disgust, gut-feelings, anecdotes and layman opinions rather than any sort of concrete moral system (they could take the time to apply a mix of deontology and utilitarianism for example). And if they do have a moral system, it is sometimes just divine command theory, not purely secular

From a moral perspective, sexualizing real minors is wrong because they cannot provide informed consent, and can thus be taken advantage of. When it comes to fictional characters though, this would be a category mistake. Fictional characters can't physically be harmed, thus we don't need to worry about them being taken advantage of

From an evidence perspective, I haven't seen any direct survey or long-term study to show that sexual art of fictional teens increases real world sexual abuse cases. Just anecdotes at this point. The issue with anecdotes is that they don't look at a survey population, just individual cases as they pop up, so you can't do a proper benefit-harm analysis. And also, you can't tell if the perpetrator would've commit a crime even if they didn't have access to the sexual art. Organizations are definitely capable of such a study, like when it was proved that smoking causes directly cancer and is not just a correlation. But it hasn't been undertaken for things like art of fictional characters