I think it's more a case of 'if you enjoy reading about people being raped, then you likely also enjoy raping people' which just plain sets off alarms.
I'm not saying it's true, but the inference is there.
Which quickly brings us back into the territory of Jack Thompson and the 'murder simulators'.
Or books. Yanno', books? What might as well be all of them? "You enjoy reading about people getting slaughtered, so, yanno', probably going to go do that. Or hey, plagues. You like plagues, right? Obviously going to go make up some plagues and spread 'em around." Doesn't work that way.
I really wish folks without a heavy -- and diverse -- grounding in current psychological research would just shut the hell up about that subject. Last time I bothered checking one one of said people, the response was "Well, yeah, a little.
Very minor contributing factor,
sometimes, but not cause," iirc, and th'actual situation is bloody-hell complex.
Naively playing up on that connection is what just plain sets off alarms to me; whoever's making the point is mostly likely either
not qualified to be making the point (read: They haven't bothered to check with the years of research data involved or they're not exercising a single ounce of rationality.) or trying to 'baffle me with bullshit' while they pull something underhanded. When you're talking about banning (forceful censorship or repression) something, bring statistical significance or go th'hell home
Distasteful fiction is just one of the costs of not living in a(n absolute) crapsack world.