Accommodating Sexual Perversion

Essentially all textiles admit to finding the unclothed human body sexually provocative. In fact, that tends to be the motivation for being textiles and why they feel nudity is obscene and indecent. Textiles essentially universally suffer from gymnophobia. It's interesting how phobias point towards suppressed sexual perversions. Although homosexuality is not a sexual perversion for most people, it is for those who have homophobia. In the mind of the homophobe, homosexuality is bad, evil, wrong, and shameful. [url][link]/link/105b3ec9e1d871ce/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucHN5Y2hvbG9neXRvZGF5LmNvbS9maWxlcy91NDcvSGVucnlfZXRfYWwucGRm[/link]Homophobia is the clearest indicator of suppressed homosexual feelings[/url]. If homosexuality is not a perversion, then why do homophobes suppress those feelings? Because for them, homosexuality is a perversion and those feeling "must" be suppressed to prevent them from engaging in perverted behaviors. I'm also a barefooter -- I essentially never wear shoes. Conditions must present a clear and present danger to my feet before I'll consider wearing shoes. And remember, because I essentially never wear shoes, conditions that may likely damage your feet are not likely to harm mine or even be uncomfortable for me. I do, occasionally, encounter a podophobe who spews all sorts of nonsense about feet. As far as I can tell, no one has done a study that would indicate that podophobia is cover for podophilia. But in my experience, that does seem to be a likely explanation. Regardless, there are people who have podophilia -- who are sexually triggered by bare feet. Should I, or any barefooter, feel an obligation to accommodate their fetish or perversion by not being barefoot in public? So as not to trigger them sexually? Is that a reasonable expectation? Or do we expect those with sexual perversions to accept responsibility for their own sexual perversions. In the same manner, nearly all textiles are sexually triggered by seeing an uncovered human body. They are incapable of looking at a nude human without having a sexual response. Is that sexual response the responsibility of the nude person? Are nudists/naturists obligated to accommodate the sexual perversions of textiles? Are nudists being "inconsiderate" of textiles by not automatically covering up when in presence of a textile? Or should textiles be expected to "own" their perversions? Certainly, many places have laws that are based on the sexual perversions of textiles and those laws must be obeyed (or suffer the consequences). But, in most cases, those laws do not apply within one's own home or in single-sex locker rooms. Is it ok for textiles to foist their sexual perversions on everyone else? Should that behavior be tolerated or accommodated? What do you say?