The NYT takes the view from the perspective of the deviant.
Then gives little to no weight to the victims of the deviant.
This view is so abhorent that I can only conclude that the author and the author’s editor are perverts.
Why oh why would anyone EVER call it that name? </sarc>
I’m sure that perversion is considered by them to be an outdated and dangerous notion unfit for use by the respectable Times pages.