With a lot of things in life that people don't like / maybe you don't like / maybe something you like but others don't like it ... you need to ask the question "Where is the harm?"
For instance:
Q: Where is the harm in dakimakura covers with lewd drawings of fantasy people?
A: There is no harm. It's just a dakimakura cover with a 2D drawing of a fantasy person on. No one is harmed in the making of it, no one is harmed in the possessing of it, there is no harm there (one could say it is just art = the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.)
And if there is no harm, there is no crime right!?
Interestingly there is something called 'The Harm Principle'.
"The harm principle states that if an action is morally unjust but doesn't cause any harm, then the state shouldn't punish the perpetrators."
"The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should be limited only to prevent harm to other individuals."
The "Minority Report" World
We live in a "Minority Report" world where some people think they can predict crime before it happens. They think they can predict offenders before they offend. Unfortunately, most of the time they are very wrong in their assumptions, and full of bias and personal opinion, usually backed by highly flawed academic papers. People are convicted on dubious laws that are not based on any realistic understanding of the subject. Judges think "they are the law" and they are the law, but they are just flawed human beings (like the rest of us), also full of bias and personal opinion.
There are many things which someone does where you can say "because so and so does this, they are that". That is mostly 99% rubbish.
For instance:
- He plays GTA (Grand Theft Auto) so he is a potential car thief and must be jailed.
- He likes playing with knives, he is a potential stabber and must be jailed.
- He likes playing with guns, he is a potential shooter and must be jailed.
- He likes playing with fire, he is a potential arsonist and must be jailed.
- He likes looking at the wrong type of pictures, he is a potential something and must be jailed.
Should we not just jail people for doing real crime (there are definitely enough real crimes that go unpunished these days) rather than jailing people who someone thinks they might potentially do something in the future?
No state should punish people on a very slim potentiality of their doing something bad in the future, when they've done no harm thus far in their lives.
No state can control peoples' fantasies. And fantasy is just that "the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things."
What is done in fantasy stays in fantasy.
What is intended for private consumption, stays private, it is of no concern to others.
Innocent until proven guilty!
No harm, no crime!
Further reading: