So like so many of these “culture debate” type things, it really becomes a matter of obstinance.
Samantha goes by Sam but that isn’t her name. It’s no harder to call her Sam than it is to call her Mr. Instead of Ms. It’s one letter difference. Does it matter if you don’t care or even “believe in” that? It’s like zero effort. If people want to call sexual fantasizing rape- then… ok. Whatever.
Do what everyone does and be dishonest.
You think most pedophiles go around telling everyone they think about kids when they jerk it? They know at least they’d likely be ostracized and could easily go to jail or be killed. So what if they criminalized thinking about people sexually without consent? You… can’t go around blabbing to everyone you meet that you got solo nasty thinking about your crush at school or your old roommate…? The humanity. Who does that anyway? Who just goes around talking about all the people they’ve masturbated to? That person is likely a jerk to begin with.

Does that make it ok though? There are some deeper issues and questions at play here.
At the end of the day though, as said, it isn’t like anyone can stop you. If you have the good sense to not blab your sex fantasía to the world, you don’t really need to worry. If you don’t want your neighbor or cousin or boss to know you rubbed one out imagining them in their pool clothes- you probably wouldn’t tell them or almost anyone else. If you REALLY didn’t want them to know.. you’d tell no one. A secret isn’t a secret when more than one person alive knows it.

There isn’t solid evidence that thinking about doing something will make us do it. Thinking about doing a thing Can actually make us less likely to do it- in theory. That said…
It is the case that for example, many prolific killers think about killing.
So the fact you think about killing people doesn’t mean you will, or that you are a killer necessarily, but if you are a killer, you’ve probably thought about killing.
The answer remains unclear. So long as what is in our heads remains private, until or unless a means to view our thoughts within the mind comes about, it isn’t really a practical issue.
Should you feel bad for masturbating to someone without consent? Maybe. I mean- if you knew they’d be upset knowing you were thinking that… well… it’s at least dishonest isn’t it? But that tends to be the human condition. Dishonesty. We wear our masks and few if anyone doesn’t even tell “white lies” to spare others feelings or smooth interactions between people.

So one would think that makes the imagination a “free space,” but then- shame is an emotion. A thought. Like all thoughts there is that feedback loop- biology influences thought and thought can influence our bodies responses- but shame is primarily in our minds. Ethics are a concept. Morality. Just thoughts. When you think about stealing you might stop yourself. Perhaps the potential consequences stop you, or perhaps it is your own internal shame at the concept. Your morality within you headspace.

Thought and imagination are however… we can call them “virtual.” A thought doesn’t have to have a tangible impact on the world. It can be some reflection of who we are, or who we are Can reflect our thoughts- but it isn’t “real” save to the person thinking it. At present our thoughts are only known to those we tell.

You do have privacy in your mind, at least for now.
That said- one can have physical privacy too.
The Catholic Church has had quite a few scandals concerning how that privacy was used, but only once it was known. So long as it was private- no one save those involved knew, to the rest of the world it never happened.
So then… if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Scientifically we can say confidently that it does. Even that which happens in total “secrecy” has some sort of real effect.

It gets sticky. Who are we? What you show the world is generally a mask, we pick and choose what we want to show people to protect ourselves or to influence perception etc. two people can meet and seem to get along and be friendly but hate each other right? It’s all what they decide they want others to perceive.
So, is what you think the “real” you and the way you act the “fake?”
Then again- what we think or our reactions are often instinct or involuntary. What you do or act on is more a choice.
So is your character defined by the fact that in your head you laughed when the old man fell down the stairs, or by the fact that your actions were to run to them, show concern, and admonish those laughing at them?
Or neither? Both?

Different people might answer differently.
I’m not advocating for or against the concept- I’m just saying that if it is “no harm no foul” to fantasize in your head, then someone who is ok with the idea of masturbating to a stranger or acquaintance would in theory not be able to say that someone fantasizing about one of their loved ones was wrong for it no?

This is true. It’s also an interesting topic.
Does privacy mean absolution?
Here is a real world example-
If you are married to someone who cheats on you, but you never have any idea they are- the fact that you don’t know- how does that impact it if at all?
If your child’s baby sitter or teacher or doctor fantasizes about children, but never acts on it, if you knew, would you be comfortable? If you never knew it wouldn’t matter right?
But if you didn’t find out until your child was 32 that their life long doctor had fantasized about children, them, the whole time- you’d just be ok with that? You wouldn’t feel any sort of negativity or betrayal or violation? Because it was all private, in their head?

The sorts of things that they had might seem basic to us- but many were cutting edge technology or luxury items. Now- compare their access to goods, services, technology, information and yours.
You work more, but you have a lot more.
The average “40 hour a week” worker will work about 100 more days than a medieval peasant in a year.
You could work part time and live in a hi el with 5 other people and eat stale and spoiled food and have no car and own a few sets of clothing and no Tv or phone etc. and work less than a medieval peasant and live about the same as they did or better.
I’ll skip only 150 days of work and enjoy having fresh food thank you.
Or you can work one of the many jobs like divers and specialists in resource and energy, logistics etc. who often work maybe 6 months a year and have the rest off. Many options.

If I wanted to counter that with equally low brow logic- I might point out that the neighbor who’s kid is leaving things on their neighbors lawn- how we he feel if someone else “only” put 3” into his wife? He’d shrug and say that 3” was nothing?

I Can see both sides. The comment about his divorce obviously indicates they may not have the best relationship shop as neighbors, hard to say who is “to blame” there- hence the importance of being “bigger” as a person in part. When only one person is lowering themselves with rudeness or aggression or insults and such. It makes it easier to form an impression of where the problem is coming from primarily.
But funny enough, his comment about “3 inches being 3 inches…” being what the neighbors ex wife said, may be insulting- but it also served the neighbors point that a mere few inches can be very important.

Some is contextual right? If you have a well manicured lawn or landscaping etc- it doesn’t particularly matter if it is an adult, child, animal, machine or alien- you out time and money into creating and maintaining that and do not want it ruined.
Likewise- kids can often be a hazard. I can’t count the times in my life that local kids playing ball games etc. near my car or such have damaged it, skateboard crashes that result in a huge dent to your vehicle, falling off or losing control of a bicycle or other toy and breaking or damaging things as a result.
So in general, I don’t like when kids are playing near “my stuff.” When I’ve had kids around, I make sure to create areas that are safe for them to play in. As free as practical of undue hazards that could hurt them, and where they can be kids and get a little wild and not always pay attention and not damage things I don’t really want damaged.
So depending on context of wether there is some harm or possible harm-

No. You’ll elect a bully and a cheat and a thief because even if they put theme laces first you’d rather get what little hood they may do you in your life than gamble in getting nothing from the person who plays nice. You will vote for the oppressor because wether you admit it or not, you’re on standing in other people to keep or improve your quality of life and your families. You want the leader that will do the things that keep you living that way and you don’t want a “fair” world, you want a world that feels fair TOWARDS YOU.

Because of course, someone who wins over all usually is motivated by personal interest so they will see to their own first.
If it is so old and well known- why does it repeat? Because of you mostly.
Because again- what is your alternative? Put you lot in and stale your lifestyle or even your life on someone who says they will gladly lose with their head held high because they can sleep with a clear conscience? If the other side has a mad dog tyrant who will lie and cheat and steal to get their way and has done well at it, you’re going to throw a boyscout into the fight and say “the things inwant and need, I might not get with this person, but I’ll know I took the high road…”

If the person making all the decisions has already shown They prize their interests above others or ethics- the rules and this the system they run on will reflect that and be stilted towards them and those like them. The only fairly consistently successful counter measure is for all sides to put forward the representative from their group most willing to do anything to win. Thusly power and politics tend to be full of the corrupt and unethical or those with flexible integrity because we tend to choose those people who have the most effective records of getting their way to represent us and in theory, get us our way. Of course tjst only works when what benefits is is of greatest benefit to that representative-

For most people, especially that they feel strongly about or impacts their self interest greatly, they will not want to lose even if it means the other person does. They will want to have their way. The other party is likely the same. Unless forced- most people will not agree to a “lose/lose” scenario in arbitration. If it is lose/lose then logically the other party loses no matter what- but that is true from the perspective of both parties isn’t it? We have already established both parties cannot have what they want, and the only reason both parties must lose is for arbitrary sake of some concepts of “fairness.” Which most people will value their wants or especially needs over arbitrary fairness. Even if both do not, one likely will and if one will not stop until they win and the other will concede for morality or ethics- the one willing to win less “nobly” will tend to make all the decisions.

Every revolution in history* has been out with the old tyrant, dictator, oppressor, and in with the new.
It isn’t so much a question of ending people being oppressed or exploited or left out and more a question of WHO gets exploited.
This is the nature of war. Given the choice between being at the mercy of another and having others be at our mercy, most will chose to the be the ones in charge.
Short of a complete change in the way humans think or some mechanism to control people at an internal level- you’ll always conceivably have people with mutually exclusive goals or stances that can’t or won’t be reconciled of compromised.
When it comes to that the outcomes are either if possible- no one gets what they want and everyone is unhappy, or someone gets what they want and is the “winner.”

Would you say a nation was free if upon going outside the police had a 50-100% chance of killing you on sight? In nature a bear or lion can do the same. So if you can’t go to get food without serious risk of being killed- does it matter if it is a pack of wolves or local police or a militia or a gang? The end result is that you don’t actually have freedom to conduct basic business freely.
This is really simple. The strong have the ability to allow the weak freedom discretionally.
If the most powerful person on earth wants something badly, they will use their power to get it, even if they must harm or restrict you. They will use their power to defend threats to their ability to live the life they want, and if you have something- it is largely just because they don’t want it. Not because you are free, but because you are unnoticed or un threatening.

With the increasing attempts by manufacturers to block self repairs, modifications, and reverse engineering, “right to repair” isn’t dying per se but it is not doing great and is a constant struggle. Of course- safety trumps all with so many voters and legislators- so pointing out that a tiny change or mistake could kill 20 people at an open air market Can be a powerful tool to allow the law to protect these companies interests in the name of public good. The costs to keep and own such a machine to specifications will likely be prohibitive to most people for a good while.
The entire concept lends it self well to “lease” or subscription based services and perhaps even tiered “ride share” type services where you call for cars on demand or on some sort of allocation and sub tier.