Permitting access to perversion is not “fulfillment”. It’s license.
I’m talking about it, from individual aspect.
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?