Deviancy but not Sleazy

I was quite disturbed to read the following article, "Documentary on Beast1ty. premieres at the Sundance Film Festival." The story, written unsurprisingly by someone at the LA Times is clearly sympathetic to this subject, "the last taboo," according to the director. The article describes it as "poetic," "strangely beautiful," with "elegiac visual re-creations." It's "not graphic in the least" because, as the director puts it "I aestheticized the sleaze right out of it."

Of course, that's always how deviancy is promoted, isn't it? Take some practice widely considered disgusting, repulsive, and sinful, and put a spin on it: make it a cinematographical masterpiece, make it emotionally captivating, stirring, and beautiful; and "aestheticize the slease right out of it." That makes it okay, right? Pretty window dressing makes what's going on inside the window more palatable.

If a man truly loves his horse--truly loves his horse--then we shouldn't regard his behavior with it as deviant or wrong. After all, who's to say it's wrong? Love is the higher end, right?

Or so they would have you believe. I'm willing to be that the continual weakening of our culture to any sense of moral absolutes will result in pedoph1a. being promoted with greater regularity and, eventually, accepted in many places. After all, who is to deny the "true love" of two consenting individuals? 18 is, after all, an arbitrary age. Why not 16, or 12, or 8? And, as this movie apparently suggests: why must both of the individuals involved be human beings? (And, I ask, for the sake of consistency, why must both of the individuals even necessarily be alive?)

Gomorrah, here we come. O Lord, have mercy upon us!