LisPi on Nostr: > they should seek professional help Which will usually ruin their life. > and/or ...

> they should seek professional help

Which will usually ruin their life.

> and/or focus on productive things and self-improvement.

There's other things to life than just that though.

> one needs to realize that such urges are not to be acted upon and stop entertaining them in any capacity.

Brains don't work that way.

This is also different from intrusive thoughts (I have intrusive thoughts), as those urges are *persistent* unlike intrusive thoughts which tend to be far more ephemeral and specific in different ways.

> people like to overestimate their self-control, entertaining evil "just a little bit" never ends well

It's not very hard to consider something fine to draw or write as fiction and refuse to do it for real.

The average horror writer would be rather disinclined to make any attempt to end-up in the Epstein Files.

The key is part of your statement. The very notion of the actions as unacceptable or harmful (with relation to reality) is in large part why they don't drift off.

> intentional indulgence in such thoughts is not normal at all for any individual.

Except that's just plain false. In *some* cases it's traumagenic, but in a lot of cases *it isn't*.

> i'm not a neuroscientist but if people do show addiction-like patterns in pornography consumption in general and not in cuddling then maybe they are not equivalent.

Part of the reason is that "addiction" is politicized and the medical truth of the matter is ignored a *lot* of the time.

Same reason neurotypicals aren't called "addicted to socializing".

A lot of "addiction" is just a moral judgement passed on people, or a sign of *other* executive dysfunction (which frequently has extrinsic causes).

This is related to the dynamic that saw depression and mental health difficulties ridiculed and ignored in society for so long.

> we also do not have any in-setting possibilities of an alternate reality so people don't concern themselves too much with what-ifs.

A very frequent acknowledgement in much fiction authorial notes I've seen for various things is along the lines of "don't think too deeply about it, no it doesn't make sense/no it doesn't work that way, it's not real and the reality would be depressing so let's ignore it".

Or doujins/scenarios that *deliberately* have a cheery ending that ignores all the negative consequences that should be present and lampshades it ("and a happy ending because it's less depressing"). Or some that use dark humor (or just humor in general) to offset things.

Full commitment to negative outcomes and scenarios is less friendly, yes, though some authors see it as a matter of artistic integrity to do that regardless of their feelings on the matter. One's mileage may vary, essentially.

> anyone finding eroguro fullfilling is genuinely concerning and disturbing to me. the underlying question is why - why would a sane individual find such ideas fulfilling?

Why do human brains find random things arousing or interesting? What's so interesting about feet? Or urine?

It's just as arbitrary.

> what kind of character traits would one have to find such a thing pleasant in any capacity?

None in particular. How they rationalize their discomfort with parts of their own mind is their own matter.

Some people find the notion of cannibalism (even as the victim) arousing.

Some find vore arousing (yes it's distinct and it disturbs me far more than the prior).

The vast majority *never* considered doing it for real, for pretty obvious reasons.

Some are ashamed, some aren't, some are simply resigned and simply accept brains are weird.

You're making the mistake of thinking people cannot feel ostensibly mutually exclusive emotions about something at the same time. Disgust and arousal *can* and *do* cohabitate for many.

*Shame*, embarrassment and arousal is practically a stereotypical mix for people into exhibitionism.

(And then the church encouraged a *very* unhealthy mix of shame & self-disgust with arousal when it was dominant around here. That led to some ugly things.)

In my experience I'd say having intrusive thoughts makes it a *lot* easier to accept that brains are weird and don't ask for permission for anything. I'd say I cannot imagine how distressing it would be to have such fetishes without a similar condition blunting the impact but... homosexuals *did* in fact experience *exactly* this discomfort before it was more accepted and wasn't vilified so harshly by society (and even then there's a lot of progress to make there).

Does homosexuality say anything about one's character? Does it guarantee one isn't a horrible person? Or that one is a horrible person?

Not at all, in either direction.

> i think most people would be concerned for their kids if they found out they have a pedophile in their living vicinity

Probably, but they should be more concerned about the authoritarian "conservative" working at the school.

(Or themselves, if they happen to think of their kids as possessions or extensions of themselves.

"Parents' Rights" do to what exactly? Abuse them to one's heart & content?)

The kind of people who think that abuse "builds character" or that "girls shouldn't complain about attention".

While said pedophile is almost certainly *very* aware of the problems involved with reality and is probably deliberately avoidant as a result.

> "yeah, my neighbor is into lolicon, he might be fantasizing about it in real life, surely my kids will be safe around him"

Honestly? Probably more than around any cop or "authority".

What your brain has decided appeals to you doesn't have bearing on your character.

But having a profession dedicated to violently enforcing the illegitimate oppression of the state or arbitrary hierarchies on people regardless of how clearly harmful it can be (while thinking they're the "good guys" for it)? Yeah, that's a *much* brighter red flag.

> i don't see why such approach wouldn't be warranted for eroguro as well.

Both deserve their right to privacy and expression, *especially* while society refuses to interrogate itself about what things & attitudes it has that are measurably far more harmful.

> giving an outlet is an acceptance of the practice,

It isn't. That's conflating fiction with reality.

In addition: I guess we'll also ban violent videogames, LARPing and basically all fiction books outside the young children's section?

> getting off to guro or lolicon or rape should absolutely never be considered anywhere close to normal or accepted.

What's normal doesn't matter. And statistically speaking, the rape one is the closest to "normal" (some studies has samples with >50% representation, meaning normalcy). It also doesn't matter in the slightest.

Fantasies & reality are two different things.

One doesn't have to shove them in everyone's face, but witch hunts for such things are ridiculous and unacceptable.

If no one is getting hurt or developing dangerously antisocial behavior as a result, then it is *not* a problem.