There are certain persons whom because of their very particular tastes, their predilections, are more inclined towards impropriety and irregularity in the eyes of society, tending to be open to manipulation, intrigue, and improper cajoling. This statement is in no way critical of anyone’s behaviors, hankerings, penchants, simply a statement of indisputable fact. For such a distinctive individual to be proof against machinations requires a personality both extraordinarily forceful and highly immune to innuendo and to the blathering of their fellows.
Dissentient characters have always been welcomed within certain circles, admired for their independence of thought and action, often flouted publicly to show a groups broadness, wide perspective, and prolific influence.
For myself I have ever navigated a generic path, neither vegetarian nor carnivore, attached nor singular, conservative nor revolutionary. I have ever considered the middle way the most comfortable, even when mine eyes are entrapped by some off course deliciousness than I am sure would be momentarily most acceptable.
Being suspectable to appetites, fancies, is not in itself a damaging characteristic, troubles only arise when self-control is diluted or dissolved by such partialities. The saintliest individuals may have an untoward disposition, but strength shows through their ability to master the frailty, allowing only manageable degrees to manifest. Unfortunately, the more a foible is commonly accepted the more likelihood the appetite will manifest openly, and we live in a time when only decidedly antisocial or ultra-violent activities are socially proscribed.
You will have likely construed that I am musing over the scrimmage between personal freedom and public censure, attempting to balance the different goals of individual choice and society’s moral and ethical constrictions.
I have no clever concise answer, or indeed a preference. I would suggest however, that individuals keep their eccentric instincts well in hand and amongst their own peers.