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…