Sorry... I respect you, and normally I think you know what you're talking about, but this is just bullshit on so many levels it's downright absurd. I think everyone knows I'm not one of those 'you've just been conditioned to think that way'-conspiracy cats, so try to take this with a grain of anthrax...
Whether we like to admit it or not our society is built on natural order. If mother nature (ala monkeys) deems it apporpriate, more often than not, scientists and psychologists will cite that as the 'right' way. An example can be found in the way we judge individuals participation in a society as 'funtional' or 'disfuntional' based on how effectively they deal with their environment (the root definition of intelligence): The monkey that stays away from the pack is often ostrasized, has a harder time finding a mate (reproducing), finding adequate food (or at least stock-piling) and ultimately preserving itself. It can't interact with other monkies effectively enough to learn how to hunt better, or make the hunt easier on itself, so it slowly, but surely, dies off. If 'functioning' means being able to sustain, then this monkey is disfunctional. Sound familiar?
Just because we've had our heads pumped so full of 'diviinity' that we now reject what's come natural as 'deviant', or 'impure', doesn't mean we actually operate outside the guidelines of mother nature. That being said, how is it at all unnatural for someone in their early teens to begin to experiment with parts of their bodies that feel sorta 'tingly' when they touch them? How is that fucked up in any way, shape or form?
If it's not... how is it deviant to engage in this sensation with another individual of nearly the same mental age (meaning being psychologically capable of dealing with sex reponsibly)? The simple fact is that it's not. A functional 13 year old can learn to hunt and fashion shelted for itself well enough to sustain if neccessary (and there's plenty of documented proof of this)... so how can it be said that they lack the capacity to engage in something so basic as sex? They don't. I don't think anything ever died off or was led off the path to preservation by voyeurism, so why should a being capable of dealing effectively with it's environment be committed to an institution for wanting to watch others engage in what comes natural?
Isn't acting out of fear from the looming threat of a 'god' the same type of ignorant insanity that allows people to operate on the (literal) word of a 'supreme being' and choose blind faith (delusions) over systematic observation? Isn that not, in essence, dealing ineffectively with your environment?
If ANYONE belongs in a 'mental institution' it's the people that've attatched the stigma of 'shame' and 'impurity' to sex out of 'fear of an angry god' (which, mind you, IS the root of female genital mutilation, castration, and various other anti-mastubitory practices), if not a prison for deviant criminal behavior.
At the core, these people (the 'shame projectors') know, or should know, that sexuality is entirely natural and that there should be no 'nastiness' attatched.... but they still make people feel like shit for behaving naturally knowing damn-well they're doing people more harm than good. So let's forget the animal kingdom, don't we as humans define 'right' and 'wrong' by the ability to know how our actions effect others? If that's the case.. isn't adding the stigma of 'nasty' to sexual endeavors, well, wrong and ruining a lot of people's lives by making them think they're something wrong with them when, really, there's not?
...and sexual impurity? Isn't that an oxymoron?