> But I am working under that assumption that the same person will have more problems with pedophile leanings/preferences than one without, because as a society we've decided to make that so.

To me, this means that we should distigmatize pedophilia in a very careful way - that is, to make it clear that to act on that desire in the real world is a violation of consent. At the moment, the only thing we've done as a society is to act as though these desires are exceedingly rare, that those desires posses the holder to act impulsively (while, simultaneously, erecting the idea of the plotting and cunning pedophile), and that without any more research, that fiction may lead to certain conclusions in that person's mind.

The reason why video game violence is brought up so much is for two reasons; firstly, because we don't have solid evidence on the effects of how (a) pedophiles understand such media (b) previously-offending pedophiles understand such media (c) how non-pedophiles but interested parties understand such media (d) how non-pedophiles and non-interest parties understand such media. For (a), the closest evidence we have (as far as I know) is (b). For (c), we have some ethnographic evidence from Japan that consumers of such fiction draw a sharp distinction between the "2D" and "3D" worlds. For (d) we only have some evidence that ordinary people are not conditioned to associate sexual descriptions to scantily-clad, real, underage children. Secondly, it's brought up because video games (and by extension horror movies, and even adult pornography) have exposed the idea that desires for what is seen may not leave the hypothesized impact on the viewer. What was previously thought of as obvious by a succession of moral panics around violent movies and later video games has been shown to be nothing more than that.

Is more research required? Absolutely - I don't think anyone can argue with that. However, research which focuses on pedophilic orientations only through the lens of convicted offenders (i.e. those who have sexually abused children, or accessed real world child pornography) does not do the topic justice. I think it's fair to say that this is comparable to similar situations - not to say that this comparison is binding or solid evidence, only a hint in the direction of a conclusion - of how people enjoy simulated rape pornography, and how people enjoy fantastical pornography. For those studies, at least, we are able to access the adult-attraction equivalents of group (c) and (d).

I'm in a strange position myself in this debate - I don't believe that moralism is the way forward, but I also (and I think along with you) don't believe that non-moral solutions can work well in our current society. The question is, for me, to what extent a pedophile can recognize that child abuse is wrong, but still express themselves sexually, to be comfortable with their sexuality.

Still, I think my point still stands. To imprison a fiction author on a tenuous basis is wrong, because it invoves the notion of collective responsibility, the notion that the author has contributed to an 'atmosphere' is by that measure guilty. The fact that many other (pedophiles with no desire to offend, non-pedophiles with no desire to offend) enjoy the material, and can be reasonably expected to be the primary audience of the material is enough to even absolve the creator of the material morally - never mind legally.

On the weight of what I see as the available evidence, analogous (video games, other forms of pornography, kink communities) or otherwise (studies of fictional CSEM fans in Japan), the presumption should be in favour of non-regulation, especially given the stasticts on who child sexual abusers are in reality.