One thing I've never really understood is the
selective hedonism that people sometimes engage in (i.e. 'what's the problem, it's not as though it hurts anyone,' and it's understood that 'harm' is emotional distress and not physical injury) where they take it as obviously reasonable in one scenario but don't consistently apply it to all ethical issues.
To repeat myself, harm to the deceased is not my issue. A victimless act can still have troubling implications about the psychology of the people who engage in it. There's no inconsistency in my saying that a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies is morally problematic while maintaining that only felt emotional distress is intrinsically harmful, that injustice requires harm (or at least a reduction in happiness paired with malintent or a negligent disregard for someone's emotional well-being) and happiness/suffering are all that moral agents should ultimately be concerned with. Imagine that someone invents a video game where the object is to murder as many pedophiles as is possible. No actual pedophile is murdered during this fantasy simulation and there's no evidence that I'm aware of linking violent video games with real-world violence statistically. Yet, we would likely agree that there is something troubling about the fact that people enjoy engaging in this kind of fantasy because it implies a disregard for the welfare of child-attracted adults, I can easily see it being the case that the promotion of this video game could indoctrinate impressionable minds into hatred against pedophiles even if, again, that never translates into real-world violence and that ultimately poses a challenge to the 'MAP liberation' movement.
I think it's a mistake to reduce this to 'disgust' and, besides being unavoidable in many scenarios, I don't think the emotional response of loved ones is necessarily unreasonable (as in, their involuntary emotional reaction is not necessarily the result of a misguided belief or value). That said, I wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to bring something like this to public attention knowing how much trauma it would cause people.
This might sound hypocritical coming from an antinatalist but I don't think it's wise to associate a 'MAP liberation' movement with a sub-culture or mindset that celebrates death as opposed to children's happiness but that's relative to my value system. It's not just that I think it's politically unwise in terms of 'softening' the perception of minor-attraction when felt by adults, I'm willing to promote things that hurt any given cause I support (in terms of swaying hearts and minds) if I believe that they're consistently implied by my ideals, it seems at odds with countering the stereotype that pedophiles don't care about children's welfare.
For the record, the only thing that I'm really taking a firm stance on is a preference for dead bodies as dead bodies. It's hard for me to imagine someone 'sexualizing' the corpse of someone whose happiness they value; whom they would prefer to live (under ideal enough conditions at least), it's upsetting to me largely because I'm skeptical and I think that's contrary to normal human psychology, but I'm open to that possibility.