> In this case, it's not; but even if it were, does that limit the ability of a text to explore interesting themes? Why?

In this case, it does. You can't have a show about a pedophile's redemption while simultaneously appealing to that demographic.

Let's not act like there's any consensus in the "scholarly literature" — if you could even call the writing of some guy with no credentials that.

>if you could even call the writing of some guy with no credentials that

The researcher I'm quoting (who's by far not alone on writing this topic in his field) is Patrick Galbraith, a researcher and associate professor of cultural anthropology at Senshu University in Tokyo.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FLmsh_8AAAAJ

> they will manage to convince you the thing you like is actually bad, which doesn't benefit you

I'd argue that there is benefit to re-evaluating one's tastes based on new information. It's always good to think critically of the content you consume.

EDIT: Wow. Can't even post comments on a new account. Not gonna beg dang for approval in his e-mail so I guess that's it for me and anyone else who's privacy-aware.

What do you mena you can't post comments? I see this jsut fine.