I would say yes and just accept it. Even though a huge percentage to a majority of people have rape or murder fantasies regularly, they are antisocial fantasies which will never be accepted in civilized nations.
There's a time and place to discuss those things and you should already know when and where. We all have labels, but you don't have to make it known to the world what they are.
The Japan perspective is pretty much the western one. Violence and pornography is bad but everyone likes it. There's nothing particularly chaste or perverse about modern Japan in comparison to the western world. The people who think so have a meme understanding and spout the exact same things over and over.
Japan had its own moral panics, they simply forgot about it because the safeguards moralists wanted were put in place and the media moved on. That's kind of like the US right now, there's no hysteria that kids are playing GTA V or watching hentai. There's no government agencies or watchdogs trying to ban Senran Kagura, because nobody cares or even knows about it except the insane twitter mob.
They have that too, they imitate perfect humans known as the Buddhas. The material world is a transient realm, and reaching Buddhahood means being reborn in Heaven. It's not that different from being the image-bearer of God and being saved.
My concept of the moral person is not one without temptation, that person is either sheltered or ignorant. The moral person is the one who doesn't act on the temptation due to a sense of right and wrong.
Think of there being a weird meal that most folks would be squeamish about eating, something like I dunno, escargot in butter garlic sauce. Now, I love snails, grew up with them and all, but a lot of folks I know think of eating snails as being disgusting.
Now, imagine there's a covered plate of delicious escargot with a huge DO NOT EAT! sign on top of it and you have two people, one who is like me and loves his snails, and another who finds em disgusting and would not eat em in a thousand years. Both people don't eat the snails. Are they equally moral because they both followed the rule set by the owner of the snails?
To me, the person who'd actually want to eat the snails, but didn't, is actually the only moral one. The other person's lack of consumption has no bearing on their morality, cause they wouldn't have wanted to eat snails anyways.
So in fact, I don't see anything pertaining to the misogyny or lack thereof from people with no interest in a particular activity. Only those who are interested yet find ways to not enact their interest out of a concern for the human rights of women, despite what they may wish to do, are moral. Anything that helps those people keep being moral, is also moral by extension, and all the pure woke knights of brilliance and goodness are just sheltered, ignorant, or bad at lying and are hiding skeletons in their closet.
The buddhist right and wrong compass is kinda weird. I don't really get it fully but basically the root of evil is attachment and the order of the world is being temporary and ever-changing so being good at changing with the wind is a moral good, that's kinda the idea. Now out of that flow things like not being overly showy with material possessions and being humble because you are aware that it is all transitory and will be blown away in an instant, and a valuing of lack of attachment to worldly desires, but it's a more personal quest for betterment and not to make the buddha happy and have him accept you and reward you. He just did this thing and you wanna mimic him cause you think it's wise. And this is not even counting for all the Shino beliefs mixed into this which make it differ notably to the Indian variation.
