One of the toughest debates I ever had in Law School was on the topic of whether a man should be punished for possession of paedophilic drawings that he himself drew, with no models. No child was ever involved, and the drawings were not sold or disseminated to anyone else.
The main problems with your idea of "Permitting access to perversion" is defining permission, access, and perversion. He is accessing a piece of latex. We are permitting the purchase and sale of latex. You're defining this as perversion simply because of the size of the piece of latex. If it were scaled up 30%, you could have no valid argument with it. Do we next regulate the size of photographs in men's magazines?
I understand the theoretical, semantic, and rhetorical appeal of these arguments.
But I have to fall back practicality and to God’s will.
On the practicality side, this will introduce people who were either borderline, or normally non-interested, into participating in pseudopedophelia. What’s the obvious next step?
Then there is the God side: You can FEEL inside your soul how wrong this is. We’re all built with internal right-wrong sensors, that God installed. Consult yours, and it will immediately register “WRONG”.
That has some premise problems right there. If someone drew depictions of murder with similar conditions, what then? And why punishment versus treatment? whereas the VR types demand neither and falsely call it treatment.
One of the toughest debates I ever had in Law School was on the topic of whether a man should be punished for possession of paedophilic drawings that he himself drew, with no models