One could make an argument (and it has been made) that the victim in such situations is the perpetrator themselves. More specifically, that their "sense of virtue" and/or psychological well-being is being corroded by such activities. (Note: I tend to lean toward personal autonomy/liberty in such manners.)
The list of activities that could be argued to corrode someone's "sense of virtue" or psychological well-being, yet the vast majority of people agree should be legal, is very long. One should run into that objection immediately.
You say there are those who make this argument. Do they happen to be the small subset of the population that actually would maintain that it's immoral to do all or most of the following: drink alcohol, stay up until 4 a.m. watching TV, watch horror movies, play violent video games, have a one-night stand, eat an unhealthy diet, spend your free time on games instead of work or study, etc.?
I guess I'm jumping to the term "legal". BadassFractal merely said they "find [it] repugnant, immoral, and will try to come up with victims". Do they stop short of saying that their moral opinion should dictate others' behavior?
Amusing that people could find lolicon to be corrosive of one's virtues or psyche, but worshipping a corpse nailed to a cross and consuming its blood and flesh on a weekly basis under the penalty of eternal torture is perfectly acceptable.
We sure are great at missing the log in our own eye.
Hmm... I’m not Christian but your comment doesn’t make sense. Jesus on the cross is presumably a symbol of sacrifice and unconditional love. “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends” and all that. I don’t see how altruism and self-sacrificial love of that nature is morally corrosive.
The threat of eternal torture, on the other hand, makes more sense.
