The author spends half the article saying it isn’t about sex; but then has this gem: > Hell, who are you to define what constitutes “weird sex stuff”? In othe

The author spends half the article saying it isn’t about sex; but then has this gem: > Hell, who are you to define what constitutes “weird sex stuff”? In other words, “It isn’t sex, I swear! But even if it is, it wouldn’t be a problem!” Not a very convincing argument. It’s also ridiculous because every society has a line for when “weird sex stuff” goes too far - do I need to show my credentials to condemn consensual incest? How soon at this rate of moral turpitude do we have the leather suits in public…