It'd seem that there isn't really that much research in this area. This is the only article I could find directly related to child SA, with a helpful conclusion:

In this work, we have established how people with attractions to children are seeking sexual satisfaction using a range of different forms of FSM depicting children. We found no evidence that engaging with sexual fantasy and various forms of FSM was associated with variance in self-reported willingness to engage in sexual offences involving children, despite substantial numbers in our sample expressing a willingness to engage in these behaviours. Instead, we found that those who were more sexually satisfied reported a lower level of willingness to engage in such behaviours, while those who held offence-supportive beliefs reported a higher willingness. We urge researchers and clinicians to use our work as a springboard for further studies on the pursuit of sexual satisfaction, the addressing of sexual frustration. All of this should be conducted within the context of reducing potential risk, while encouraging a more evidence-informed social conversation about the importance of sexuality considerations in this area.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2026.2619511#d1e4039

Though I think that banning lolicon drawings would just make pedophiles go and consume actual child pornography, which is arguably worse.

Its the same situation like many have described:

To say that lolicons are pedophiles is equivalent to say that gamers who play violent games blowing up buildings or slashing people into a million pieces are terrorists.

Its really depends in the end, and like other commenter said, such question is hard to prove fully because there is barely any research.

The hard answer is: both

There are some people for whom such material would inspire actuating on their fantasies, and for others, act like a pressure release valve.

The real question is: in a utilitarian sense, does it reliably produce less suffering?

I agree with you, as long as no real child is involved, nobody got hurt, so I don't care. And I also think having a fictional pressure release is preferable to a real one.

But that is not really the topic here. This is about the term lolicon and how a lot of pedophiles hide behind that term. In my opinion the translation in the picture is correct. That has nothing to do with censorship, as the tweet tries to portray it as.

At best, I imagine it would be like being addicted to cigarettes but only having a fruity vape. Yeah, it'll get the monkey of your back, but it isn't truly satisfying, and the second you can have what you really want, you're going for it.

The difference is, a smoker can quit, but a pedophile will always be a pedophile.

Sadly there doesn't seem to be any reputable studies in this field - probably because it's super controversial to begin with.

On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm, it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because "oh it's just a drawing".

(mind you it's important to distinguish a very similar argument from furries - furries are often claimed to be zoophiles, however an overwhelming majority of furries are against bestiality, and doesn't even sexualise their characters, which are usually anthropic - human shaped with animal physical characteristics - and sapient, therefore able to consent. A child, regardless if they're real or drawn, cannot consent).

On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by "disarming" paedos. Obviously those opposing then claim that no, it's actually harmful, because just jerking off to drawings won't be enough for most, and slippery slope fallacy ensue, they'll be gone from jerking to drawings, to kidnapping and raping children.

Again the problem is we don't have any data supporting either way. In my opinion, it could go either way, it heavily depends on the person, and without a thorough study, but that study wouldn't be ethical to conduct because of the potential of endangering children one way or another....

And of course the moment one tries to debate for "on the other hand", that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so, as they're literally campaigning for the legalisation of children's sexualisation in their specific way... which, at the end of the day, is paedophilia.

I think help, because they would like the drawings more and more and the real deal less and less.

You see people who are obsessed with anime, be super attracted to anime characters and little to no attraction to real women.

I think its the same circular argument about guns in video games, does running around GTA shooting everyone give someone their "fix" or will it encourage them to go do it for real?

If the fake stuff gives people their "fix", then so be it. Anyone that harms a real child can have their 2nd head publicly removed to discourage others. Not sure what to do if they don't have that part, but a punishment like that will never happen so not gonna think to hard about it.

It'd be useless as a way to satiate pedophiles if they aren't even into it.

If the often stated things about pedophilia being more of a mental illness and mainly about power, then I'm curious how much overlap there is between people who are into anime lolis and "actual" pedophiles. Is that Venn diagram basically a circle, or is there little overlap? I suspect it's closer to the minimal overlap end and lolicons are like other people who are into more extreme fetishes in fantasy but not reality.

Not sure how you'd go about figuring this out though.