LisPi on Nostr: > that still doesn't really give a good reason why one would intentionally occupy ...

> that still doesn't really give a good reason why one would intentionally occupy their ideas and share media of something widely viewed as immoral.

Because it is part communication, part fulfilling some need and part art (not mutually exclusive with the others).

> just like is the case with lolicon or noncensual media.

For that first one, any in-setting possibility of shapeshifting, agelessness or bodily modification throws basically all the power dynamic assumptions around that out the window. Differences in mental development of a human-like species likewise.

Such cases do not present ethical challenges.

Regarding nonconsent, a rather peculiar take I've seen in fiction involve purposeful manipulation of one's memory for the setup of a consensual nonconsensual scenario.

The ethics get a bit weird for that one (is it even possible to violate one's own consent?) and I think depend greatly on the context of the limits & time.

Now, there *are* the case that are ambiguously unethical outside of fiction being represented fictionally, but for this I would still claim artistic freedom matters as no *actual* consent has been violated.

In addition, empirical evidence seems to show that safer and healthier substitutes for various urges tend to displace less healthy or self-conflicting options, and that this dynamic *also* applies to such fetishes, urges, etc.

> an increasing amout of feel-good hormones it had when occupied with such thoughts

And yet you see *very* few people addicted to cuddling. Which does the exact same thing and is even *easier* to obtain for many.

The quoted statement is an unhelpful oversimplification with clear counter-examples.

> they already crossed many moral lines by thinking about it in the first place

I refuse to entertain the notion of thoughtcrime and further cast doubt on the notion of objective morality (philosophers have already done the work of tearing that one down anyway).

Self-erasure/repression/suppression does *not* end well with humans in general. It tends to lead to disastrous outbursts.

> (the "you become what you feed your mind" image comes to my mind)

That one is especially funny because by and large, rape is typically done by people swimming in cultures of patriarchy and the denial of the value & rights of others.

The overwhelming majority of real child rape and other sexual abuse isn't even done by clinical pedophiles. Just average rapists that had a convenient victim.

And going by various studies, for a *lot* of them the sex isn't even the point. It's the domination, hurt and entitlement.

*That* is something that can be handled entirely by social dynamics and a culture that puts rights and consent at the center of its priorities. Safe play & scenarios being approved.

The urges don't disappear (and I refuse to even entertain the notion of nonconsensual modification of the brain, ask some neurodiverse or disabled friends why it's a bad idea), but the outlets such an individual would ever consider if they have alternatives would change drastically.

Also such an approach is not incompatible with abolition of carceralism (which itself tends to make things worse).