The priorities of the national broadcaster when spending those 1.3billion dollars extracted from workers:

" Modern family': Mother and son become father and daughter

In what could be a world first, mother and son are becoming father and daughter, supported by a loving family that will now have two dads and no son. ..

But how does a family — a mother, father, four daughters and son — overcome all of the challenges that have come with being true to who they are. Can the family unit remain as two fathers and five daughters?"

Courtesy of Tara Brown, of Beirut fame, 60 Minutes and the ABC.

What do they pay this clown and don't pay the dozens of 'ordinary', non-'celebrity' ABC staff who actually do provide needed services, entertaining and of practical benefit?

leoj,

Why are you surprised what happens in the USA?

Look who they have as President.

Anything is possible in America - right?

Except of course - ("Liberty and Justice For All,")
but don't tell anyone.
Still we love them - hence what happens there is news
here - our lives are so, well, ordinary.

I watched the program totally fascinated. As I'm sure so
did many other viewers.

But then I also watched (several times in fact) and totally
loved the movie, "Priscilla Queen of the Dessert." I've
even seen the stage version of it.

How could you not. That's life.
And it's fascinating.

Foxy,

Off you go with one of your diversions. All sorts of things happen somewhere, some time. So lets dispense with that straightaway.

However that was never the issue. The following questions are being posed.

1. How does the ABC manage so unerringly to find and screen such rather unique people (60 Minutes admits it is probably a 'world first') and why does it bother?

2. Why is this admitted (by 60 Minutes) rather unusual family being touted by the ABC as the 'Modern Family', a choice of words that deliberately conveys the impression to viewers, some young and impressionable, that the choices being made are commonplace and even normal?

3. Are there other stories and issues of relevance and practical benefit to the public that 60Minutes and the ABC should be addressing and isn't?

-Bluntly, is the taxpayer getting good value for money from the ABC when it prefers to beat up and sensationalise stories like this? Maybe they appeal to the voyerism of some as you may be suggesting.

Has Jones, Q&A, given it some airtime yet? Maybe soon? Q&A is a display place for stuff like that.

leoj,

Gee I don't know why the ABC would bother to do
that kind of show? Let's stop and think for a minute?

Why do we have coverage of
the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney?
Could it be that gays, lesbians, transgender
people, do exist in this country? They also work
and pay taxes and contribute to our society.
Therefore their stories also need to be told?
Just guessing.

I believe there's a high-ranking transgender person
in the military in this country that I've read something
about. I'll have to look it up and get back to you. As I
posted previously. That's life - and it does have a right
to educate us. We just may learn something from it.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

Lieutenant Colonel Cate McGregor is the highest
ranking of six transgender people serving in the
Australian Defence Force.

You can Google more about the lady.

False comparison and another diversion.

It has already been admitted by 60Minutes that the story is unique, RARE, "in what could be a world first etc".

If it appealed to your voyerism and consuming interests, 'Your ABC' gave you what you want, I suppose. Your ABC and Your very narrow priorities.

However the publicly funded national broadcaster is supposed to be serving the broader community. How does this story become a priority for the expenditure of resources? What about the other stories that are forgotten?

So why is Tara Brown and 60 Minutes haring off after that unusually complex, attention seeking family and enthusing about how 'modern' they are? Modern? Confused is more like it.

Have a go at those questions you are avoiding. Too hard?

leoj,

You are right.

1) It was a false comparison and another diversion.

2) It was voyeurism and my consuming interests.

3) I do have very narrow priorities.

4) The ABC should serve the "broader community."

5) It was not a "Modern Family," but a confused one.

There you go.

I can't argue with your logic. I'll leave this discussion to
others who can. For me it is definitely too hard.

Cheers.

Sixty Minutes is lacklustre and predictable.

Time for it to be put to rest.

The ABC is composure watching for you jole so why the criticism. All tv,s have an off button. You need one yourself.

These 'stories' are pornography for voyeurs. Stories about another person's sexuality is voyeuristic. We do not need to know these things unless we are contemplating a sex change and if we do need to know then we would get our information from medical experts.

The sexuality of a person is only relevant to that person and to anyone they want to have sex with. Sexuality is a private issue and those who need to parade their sexuality are insecure exhibitionists. So here we have a story where exhibitionists meet the neurotic needs of voyeurs. The tabloid media appeal to this and it says a lot about the producers of stories like this. They are hanging their own neurosis out for everyone to see. They are using their audience to test their own personal attitudes to sex and relationships and looking for support for their own insecurities.

This program sounds like a left whinger's wet dream.

The odds that
the mother changes to be a man,
and the son changes to be a daughter,
and the original straight dad is happy to now be married to a bloke,
is so remote that adding in an alien to the mix would not make it any less believable.

Humans have been fascinated by these stories for ever. Until recently (ie 1950s), if your grew up with the slightest classical education (Greek and Roman mythology, Latin at school) you would have been engrossed with them as a teenager. Strange families? Just look at the Greek and Roman gods! But every culture has had their version. Theses stories go back to the basics of human thought: Who are we? What is male? What is female? How do we live together?

What the media is doing today is recycling these eternal human stories in modern garb, either through 'true life' examples as the one described here, or as fictional themes (the early Dr Who series did an exceptional job of recasting the old myths and legends). Of course, they've been recycled many times in the past, in literature, theatre and art; the modern media are just doing the same but adding a new version 'real life'.

A couple of favourites:
Leda and the Swan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leda_and_the_Swan
Tiresias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiresias

Tiresias was transformed into a woman for seven years, then back to a man. Then, 'Tiresias was drawn into an argument between Hera and her husband Zeus, on the theme of who has more pleasure in sex: the man, as Hera claimed; or, as Zeus claimed, the woman, as Tiresias had experienced both. Tiresias replied, "Of ten parts a man enjoys one only." Hera instantly struck him blind for his impiety. Zeus could do nothing to stop her or reverse her curse, but in recompense he did give Tiresias the gift of foresight and a lifespan of seven lives.'

Mind you, I never understood why Hera got mad at him for saying, effectively, that women enjoy sex nine times as much as men. Perhaps she didn't want men to learn this?

In summary, the evidence of human culture over millennia and across the world suggests that views like those of Phanto are mistaken: the sexuality of others has and always will be both fascinating and relevant to humans. We understand ourselves by trying to understand others.

I erred by crediting the ABC in lieu of Ch 9. Apologies.

Cossombody:

You are talking about mythical stories. The one presented on 60 minutes is anything but mythical. These people will have surgery to change their gender. They are not just imagining it – it is a fact for them. Such surgery was not available in the era you are describing so it could hardly be ‘fascinating’ to people of that era.

Nor was there any such mental construct as a ‘sexuality’. This is a totally 20th century concept. People did not think about their ‘sexuality’.

This story appeals to those who do not have a firm sense of their own attitudes to sex. No one needs to understand how others respond to their sexual feelings unless they are unsure about their own responses. They want to check what others do with those feelings to see if it accords with what they do. People who are comfortable with the way they deal with their own sexual feelings do not need to understand themselves by trying to understand others – it is not really that complex.

denying biology seems to be a dogma of abc/regressives. 60 minutes is no different. And they are deluded enough to think they are the rational ones.

It is quite simple really;
Any combination of LGBDXYZ will NEVER propagate itself.
It is destined for extinction.
It can NEVER be "normal".

That is the start & end of it.

//Bluntly, is the taxpayer getting good value for money from the ABC when it prefers to beat up and sensationalise stories like this?//

* 60 Minutes is screened on channel 9.
* Channel 9 is privately owned.
* Taxpayers don't pay for channel 9.
* Advertising revenue pays for channel 9: that means they have to get people to watch their shows, which means they have to screen sensationalist current affairs stories.
* 60 Minutes has been 9's flagship current affairs program since as long as I've had a television (they're not as good as they're used to be), and with all of the press they got after the kidnapping scandal, how could anybody be unaware that 60 Minutes is NOT an ABC program?
* Unless they were just pretending to be unaware so they could have another round of the forum's favourite sport, ABC kicking.
* Actually watching the show would definitely give the game away: for one thing, you'd have to tune your TV to channel 9 instead of the ABC. They also have ads breaks mid-program, and probably a watermark during the program.
* So it's safe to assume leo didn't watch it: he just read about it somewhere and is apparently so ignorant of televisual scheduling that he assumed 60 Minutes is on the ABC, because obviously commercial channels never screen shite. In short, he is whingeing about NOTHING. And they call the left whiny...
* Bluntly, are we getting good value for money from OLO contributors when they prefer to beat up and sensationalise the ABC like this?

//I erred by crediting the ABC in lieu of Ch 9. Apologies.//

Bahahahaha! Most tokenistic apology ever. Because it rather changes things if it's a private broadcaster screening shite instead of the public broadcaster, doesn't it leo? Can't whinge about scheduling you don't pay for.

The ABC are always going to screen crap you don't like and make you grumble about 'rubbish like this not being worth the licence fee'. This is because everybody has different tastes, so of course it won't all appeal to you. Have you ever watched an epsiode of Compass? Most pointless, boring show ever. And we could do without all the Midsomer Murders. Or indeed, any Midsomer Murders. Truly appalling. But you know, I honestly can't remember the last time I watched a commercial station? ABC is all I watch these days. Yes, they screen a lot of crap. But less than the commercial channels, and I'm glad we still have them.

//It is destined for extinction.//

It's been around for thousands of years, Bazz. Any prediction as to when we might expect this extinction?

If you want an example of the ABC's dishonesty watch the DRUM tonight,
I think it is on 24 tonight.
In it the Sth Australian is talking about Pauline Hanson and stated
that she made an anti-vaccination comment.
Then later the host repeated the statement.

Now I saw the original Hanson statement.
What she said was that parents that do not want to vaccinate their
children should not have their welfare entitlements stopped.
She went on to say her children had been vaccinated and also her
grandchildren had been vaccinated.
She also said they should get tests done first. A doctor came on
various outlets and said tests are not available. However I was told
that in some cases restricted tests are available.

However the rest of the week the ABC made comments about Hanson's
vaccination policy etc just letting people think it was
anti-vaccination that they were talking about.
They were very careful not to say anti-vaccination.
Obviously they were aware of what was said but they were not about
to enlighten anybody about that.

That is what I call blatant dishonesty.

However that would not have suited the ABC's agenda.
They will claim of course that it was just typical incompetence.
Like the blackout of Kayser Trad it will just be one of those things.

Bazz,

That information is a surprise. I had formed the view from reports that she is anti-vax and no-one has said anything to the contrary.

Bazz,

As someone who keeps a close eye on the latest BS to come from the anti-vax movement, I can assure you that Pauline Hanson’s statement was a typical anti-vaxxer statement.

<<What she said was that parents that do not want to vaccinate their children should not have their welfare entitlements stopped.>>

Yeah, that’s a typical anti-vaxxer statement. Although, in Hanson’s case, I’d be willing to grant that she is probably just stupid enough to not fully appreciate the idiocy of what it was that she was saying.

<<However I was told that in some cases restricted tests are available.>>

No, there are no tests available. Not even “restricted” ones (whatever they would be). We do, however, know how to tell easily enough if a person is not able to be vaccinated. They’re generally known as “cancer patients” or “newborns”. These are the people who are at risk of the stupidity that Hanson was endorsing under the guise of liberty.

That being said, I don’t think the media needs to push the “Pauline Hanson is an anti-vaxxer” line too much. This uneducated idiot is her own worst enemy. All the rest of us have to do is sit back and watch her destroy herself; just as her ACTUAL anti-vax hero, Trump, is currently doing in the US.

Phano: We now call the stories of the Roman and Greek gods myth, in the sense of imaginary, but only because that religion was replaced by Christianity; otherwise we still might be worshipping Jupiter and his family or the Norse equivalents, in which case we'd call this religion, not myth and legend.

However 'myth' is used more broadly in the anthropological sense: the stories people tell to explain the world, including themselves. Those stories can be religious, fictional or they can be about real people. (Some old myths may have been based on real people too).

Further, at least one form of transgender surgery has been around for a very long time: castration. This was practised in many cultures, from ancient China to Ancient Greece to Europe and for many reasons (harem attendants, castrati singers).

So I stand by my previous post: human sexuality and its variants has been a long-standing obsession of humans (for fairly obvious reasons). It's not a 20th century construct (check out what the Victorians got up to!) Just read some history, some literature, look at some art. People have thought about and told stories about human sexuality, including transformations between sexes, and between humans and animals, since, well, probably since we became human. Just because there are now surgical techniques allowing easier external gender change doesn't means humans haven't thought about it for a very long time.

Dear Cossomby,

Articulate as ever.

You've put it all into a nutshell and done it so well.
I wish I could have done it. The more we know about
what does exist in our communities and the problems that
some people face in their daily lives - perhaps we shall
begin to understand that "one size does not necessarily
fit all." Nor does it need to.

Thanks Foxy. I actually earn a living writing, turning complex information into clear English. Posting here occasionally is an educational experience because of the feedback: it shows just how easy it is for people to misconstrue what you write, no matter how hard you try to be clear.

My favourite feedback quotes (not from OLO, but in the real world):
'What you really mean is' ....then proceeding to rephrase what I said but with the reverse meaning.
'It doesn't have to be accurate, it's just for the public'.
'It has to be much simpler than that, it's for the Minister'.

Dear Cossomby,

So you're a writer?

I should have guessed.

How lucky are we to have you posting on OLO.

Have you every considered doing an article for
OLO?

Foxy, I write non-fiction and educational material, contract reports, these days mostly heritage/historic, though my background is in science. I've also done some editing.

Many years ago I was asked to produce two versions of a report: one technical, the other Plain English. Stuff that, I thought, writing two reports for one fee! I'll write just one, in a way that anyone can understand. I've done that ever since, no matter how complex the subject, and I've had some nice feedback from this approach, for example, when a client said 'Love your report! I've been reading it bed at night!' That is quite a compliment, given that most such contract reports just get quietly shelved.

As for writing something for OLO, I don't think so. You have to have opinions set in concrete to do that.

Cossomby:

I am well aware of what a myth is but a 60 minutes story is not a myth. It is a factual report about the experiences of real people hear and now.

Castration was hardly a choice to change gender and quite often was forced upon victims. It was a very violent act.

“human sexuality and its variants has been a long-standing obsession of humans (for fairly obvious reasons)”

An obsession is not a good approach to anything much less to human sexuality. Why would anyone be interested in the sexual actions of those people in the program unless they had some voyeuristic tendencies? Sex is something you do not something you watch. Everyone knows what sexual feelings are as much as they know what fear or anger is. You do not need others to tell you what you already know nor how you should go about satisfying those feelings. People understood sex long before 60 minutes came along.

A show like that appeals to those who are not sure about their own sexual feelings and what to do with them. They are looking for affirmation about their own attitudes. They do not trust their own feelings and instincts and so they seek reassurance from other sources. If they have uncertainties then there are many more appropriate places to go to than to tabloid journalists.

There is nothing unique in the feelings that these transgender people have. They have the same sexual feelings as the rest of us. How they deal with those feelings may be different but why would anyone be interested in that? Who cares how others deal with their sexual feelings? The only ones that should be relevant to you are your own.

Dear phanto,

I can only speak for myself as to why I watched
this particular 60 Minutes program. I know little
about transgender people (adults and children) and
wanted to broaden my knowledge on the topic. As it
turned out - I still don't quite understand the
causes and the extreme actions taken, especially of
the parent who had both breasts removed in order not
to remain a woman and yet did not want to go through
with surgical procedures any where else. This I did
not understand - because now they were neither one nor
the other.

Phanto. I'm going to disagree with you one last time. History is against you. By obsession, I mean perpetual fascination, by all humans in all societies over a very long time. Sex, sexuality is the basis of all human relations, and so people are and always have been obsessed/fascinated/curious about it, whether it's portrayed through stories of the gods and goddesses, or Hamlet, or real-life TV news and current affairs. It doesn't make any difference whether it's fictional or real, humans are fascinated. We want to know what makes people tick, and we like to hear about what other people do to see if we're normal (even if we don't do such things, even that may make us feel 'normal'). OK. I accept that you personally don't feel this way, and clearly don't understand why others do, but given the data from millennia of human culture right up to an including 60 Minutes, you are in a minority.
Let's leave it at that, or else I might be tempted to turn this topic into an anthropologic, literary and media distance ed course!

Foxy:

Why did you want to broaden your knowledge on this particular topic? Are you contemplating a sex change?

People might be interested if they were considering it but as I said your first point of call would be someone of authority on the subject. We might be interested in a heart transplant operation but that is because we all have hearts. Only a very small percentage would be interested in trans gender surgery since it does not apply to us.

Having an interest in someone else's genitals is the stuff of voyeurism unless you are going to come into contact with those genitals. There is simply nothing to be gained from 'broadening' your knowledge in this regard. There is way too many other things which are reasonable to spend time on.

Dear phanto,

Why was I interested?

As Cossomby pointed out - to better understand the world
and the people who live in it. What makes them tick and why they
think the way they do. I wanted to hear it right from
the horses mouth so to speak.

Cossomby:

Your presupposition is that because people are fascinated in something that it must be a reasonable thing to be fascinated with.

There are millions of people who are not fascinated in sexuality anymore than they are fascinated in their hormonal system or their breathing apparatus or their skeletal structure. These things are just as fundamental to life as sexuality. We just live our lives. We have sex and then move onto the next thing like eating or working or playing. We are not obsessed with sex. We put it into perspective and live the whole of life.

You seem to be suggesting that just because some people have been fascinated by sex that it is something more fascinating than any other aspect of life. This does not mean that sex is fascinating in itself but that people are unduly troubled by it and cannot get it into perspective. This sends them into an obsessive search for the perspective that others seem to have attained. This has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with perspective.

What you read into history cannot be presumed to be a vindication of the obsession with sex and could just as easily be interpreted as a search for perspective. Many people are not so obsessed and they do not need to watch shows like 60 minutes dish up. They simply do not care.

Instead of making wild generalisations about mankind’s obsession with sex and then making even wilder conclusions from that perhaps you could tell us why you personally wanted to watch that show.

Foxy:
But you are not interested in everything. No one is interested in everything. Why in particular were you interested in this story?

Dear phanto,

I've already stated I knew very little about
transgender people. I wanted to make an effort
to learn more.

Well, I did warn you...

I'm not trying to vindicate people's fascination with sex, or read anything into history. It's just the way it is. It's why you exist. I'm fascinated but not obsessed in a negative way, while your vehemence against this suggests that you might have the odd hang-up.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/somebodies-and-nobodies/200908/why-are-we-obsessed-sex

http://thesaltcollective.org/the-biblical-case-for-embracing-transgender/

And personally I've always been much more interested in sex than my lungs or skeleton. Like most people?

Foxy:

“I've already stated I knew very little about
transgender people. I wanted to make an effort
to learn more.”

But you did not say why you wanted to know more. No one delves into a subject without good reason and without specific reason. I don’t see why you cannot provide a specific reason for your interest in how others conduct their sex lives unless you are uncomfortable with that reason.

Cossomby:

“It's just the way it is.”

No that is the way it is for you.

You make a grand statement that people have always been fascinated by sex. Is this all people and all sex? For example are all people fascinated by pedophilia?

From this wild assumption you have deduced that such fascination must be a good thing simply on the basis of the numbers that do it. You cannot produce any numbers but we are simply supposed to accept your word for it. On the basis of your imaginary numbers we should draw the conclusion that such fascination is therefore reasonable. There is no possibility that it could not be reasonable.

This kind of logic is the basis of your argument as to why anyone would watch a show about transgender people. They’ve always been interested and in great numbers. So anything that people are interested in great numbers must of course be reasonable.

“And personally I've always been much more interested in sex than my lungs or skeleton. Like most people?”

Why do you have to tell us that you are interested in sex? We would have already presumed that. Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself.

Dear phanto,

Why did I want to learn more about transgender people?
Because I knew so little about them.

I can't make it any clearer.

//Sex is something you do not something you watch.//

Speak for yourself, John Harvey Kellogg. I derive a lot of pleasure from watching sex and there isn't a reputable medical body in the world who'll tell you that's a bad thing.

//Having an interest in someone else's genitals is the stuff of voyeurism unless you are going to come into contact with those genitals.//

Yeah, you say that like it's a bad thing... what's going to happen to me if I watch too much sex? Blindness? Imbecility? Moral degeneration? Blisters on the palm of the hand (giggity)?

//Sex, sexuality is the basis of all human relations, and so people are and always have been obsessed/fascinated/curious about it, whether it's portrayed through stories of the gods and goddesses, or Hamlet, or real-life TV news and current affairs. It doesn't make any difference whether it's fictional or real, humans are fascinated.//

It certainly makes for great fiction:

"Your kiss is honey and your touch scorches like fire, and I worship it." His words are becoming more rhythmic now, keeping pace with the thrust and roll of their bodies. "Bring me your lust in the morning, and bring me relief and your blessing in the evening. Let me walk in dark places unharmed and let me come to you once more and sleep beside you and make love with you again. I worship you with everything that is within me, and everything inside my mind, with everywhere I've been and my dreams and my-- he breaks odd, panting for breath. "What are you doing? That feels amazing. So amazing" - and he looks down at his hips, at the place where the two of them conjoin, but her forefinger touches his chin and pushes his head back, so he is looking only at her face and at the ceiling once again.

"Keep talking, honey," she says. "Don't stop. Doesn't it feel good?"

"It feels better than anything has ever felt," he tells her, meaning it as he says it. "Your eyes are stars, burning in the, shìt, the firmament, and your lips...

...are gentle waves that lick the sand, and I worship them," and now he's thrusting deeper and deeper insider her: he feels electric, as if his whole lower body has become sexually charged: priapic, engorged, blissful. 

"Bring me your gift," he mutters, no longer knowing what he is saying, "your one true gift, and make me always this-always so-I pray" 

And then the pleasure crests into orgasm, blasting his mind into void, his head and self and entire being a perfect blank as he thrusts deeper into her and deeper still... 

Eyes closed, spasming, he luxuriates in the moment; and then he feels a lurch, and it seems to him that he is hanging, head down, although the pleasure continues. 

He opens his eyes. 

He thinks, grasping for thought and reason again, of birth, and wonders, without fear, in a moment of perfect postcoital clarity, whether what he sees is some kind of illusion. 

This is what he sees: 

He is insider her to the chest, and as he stares at this in disbelief and wonder she rests both hands upon his shoulders and puts gentle pressure on his body. 

He slipslides further inside her. 

"How are you doing this to me?" he asks, or he thinks he asks, but perhaps it is only in his head. 

"You're doing it, honey," she whispers. He feels the lips of her vulva tight around his upper chest and back, constricting and enveloping him. He wonders what this would look like to somebody watching them. He wonders why he is not scared. And then he knows. 

"I worship you with my body," he whispers, as she pushes him insider her. Her labia pull slickly across his face, and his eyes slip into darkness. 

She stretches on the bed, like a huge cat, and then she yawns. "Yes," she says. "You do." 

The Nokia phone plays a high, electrical transposition of the "Ode to Joy." She picks it up, and thumbs a key, and puts the telephone to her ear. 

Her belly is flat, her labia is small and closed...

...A sheen of sweat glistens on her forehead and on her upper lip. 

"Yeah?" she says. And then she says, "No, honey, he's not here. He's gone away." 

She turns the telephone off before she flops out on the bed in the dark red room, then she stretches once more, and she closes her eyes, and she sleeps."

- Excerpt from 'American Gods' by Neil Gaiman (PBUH)

//Your presupposition is that because people are fascinated in something that it must be a reasonable thing to be fascinated with.//

Your presupposition is that because you are not fascinated in something that it must be an unreasonable thing to be fascinated with.

//Foxy:
But you are not interested in everything. No one is interested in everything.//

Here endeth the discussion. The phantoic oracle has spoken, and it never errs from the truth.

//And personally I've always been much more interested in sex than my lungs or skeleton. Like most people?//

Nah, that's weird mate. I mean don't get me wrong, I like pornhub as much as the next bloke. But it's not what you'd call fascinating: there is little in the world of porn that is novel, and almost naught that stimulates one's intellectual curiosity beyond the level of 'how did they achieve that effect?' which applies to all film.

Gray's Anatomy (the classic text not the shite TV program) is way more interesting than sex. I believe that you are conflating 'interesting' with 'entertaining'.

//But you did not say why you wanted to know more.//

Well I can't read minds the way you can phanto... but I'd hazard a guess at curiosity. It's an affliction that affects some people, but probably something you've never had to worry about.

//For example are all people fascinated by pedophilia?//

Well I certainly am. It's the same sort of fascination one has with Nazis and Aztec human sacrifice and Ed Gein. What makes these people so sick and twisted? In the case of the Nazis and the Aztecs, how does that sort of perversion become normalised and acceptable?