Spectrum-Based Perversity

So, I don't know if I've mentioned this yet, but I'm working on writing up a Sex Positive Manifesto (seeing as everybody I've ever come across who's claimed to be "sex positive" does not conform to what I believe a sex positive perspective ought to be). It's taking a while, because it's hard to write something that you intend to be definitive - I want to make sure I hit all the bases, while still being general enough to cover the entire playing field. It's a challenge, but something I'd really like to complete.

Anyway, this idea of "spectrum-based perversity" or sexuality or whatever is one of the ideas that will be going into the manifesto, but I wanted to give you a sneak peek at what that concept looks like. This also ties in to another idea that's going into the manifesto, which is a rejection of the paraphilic approach towards sexual diversity - which is what the clinicians do when they look at alternative interests (fetishes and such) as diseases and mental disorders instead of wonderful expressions of natural human diversity.

Basically, to put it in BDSM terms, it's the concept (and it's terrible that I even have to point this out) that not everyone who likes spanking owns a sex dungeon, and also that not everyone who owns a sex dungeon is a serial killer. Because people just love to jump to conclusions, right? Here it is in terms of a so-called "fetish" that affects me personally:

---

I want people to understand that "voyeurism" and "exhibitionism" are not simply sexual perversions that cause people to commit antisocial acts against non-consenting others (such as flashing strangers, and putting mirrors on their shoes), but psychological interests that exist on a wide spectrum, encompassing such benign activities as, for example, "people watching" and performance theater; and that, even when they develop as sexual interests, they can be practiced in healthy and consensual forms - such as the voluntary production and enthusiastic consumption of pornography. Defining these terms only by their worst examples is unfair, and damaging to those who have these interests, and are seeking ways to indulge them responsibly, if at all possible. Tell a mouse he's a monster for wanting a cookie, and he's more likely to resort to monstrous acts in order to get that cookie, than change his mind about how hungry he is.

---

I think that one of the big differences between me and the rest of the world is that I have compassion for sexual minorities. I don't look at them and think, "ew, gross! You're a monster! What's wrong with you?" Rather, I'm more likely to think, "it's unfortunate that you have such inconvenient tastes. But it's fascinating, too. Let's see how we can incorporate you into the fabric of society."

So am I wrong? Am I the bad guy? Am I forcing the majority to "suffer" the participation of these unliked minorities? Or is there some virtue in the idea of equality, and some value in fostering diversity? I believe there is. But I ask again, am I wrong? Am I the bad guy? Because if that makes me a bad guy, then I'll be the bad guy. But I just don't think it makes sense that way. And nobody who's ever disagreed with me has ever convinced me otherwise. So why is it okay for the majority of the population to go on being wrong, when being wrong does real harm to real people? Can you answer me that?