Didn't want to barge in on OP's post so I'll make my addendum separately: I'm skeptical of the preoccupation with the theoretical "harms" of unpublished erotic fiction, produced by amateurs, without profit, in typically sequestered if not outright clandestine spaces. Or the motivations that factor into its creation. People are complex, horny, and they like to make stuff. They are probably a lot more reflective about it than any of the handwringing takes I've seen give them credit for. "Legitimate" art and racy fanfic alike are both rife with genre formations that we recognize for their "constructedness" and artificiality, as exaggerations or pastiche, or that simply announce themselves as part of a given lexicon of fictional convention. The idea that playing with the fantasy distortions of a trope would necessarily be a reifying rather than deconstructive activity is, to me, ungenerous to the point of caricature. It presumes a thoughtless, almost nefarious indulgence we rarely attribute to other forms of authorship. We consider representations of graphic violence in television and film to be themselves quite considered, as conscious aesthetic and narrative decisions. And yet some people seem to treat it as self-evident that erotic art must be less dimensional in its expression, that it poses unique or egregious hazards because it has the capacity to provoke more than exclusively intellectual stirrings. This has only ever struck me as a very sad and regressive and boring attitude.