Normality of a thoughtful stalker 

The modern life–accepted stalkers are scientists.

Society looks down upon a stalker, but not a scientist.

The difference, I suspect, is “permission.”

Animal researchers stalk their subjects by creating various scenarios, and they describe them in loving tones. They write paragraphs about childhood, adolescence, mating behavior, social and private interactions, emotional states, and detailed anecdotes about aging and other life events. This is done in the name of science. Someone funds this research. And all of it happens without any real consent from the subject in question. One of the intended outcomes is monetary gain.

Now, to talk about the stalker: they do it sneakily, may keep things private, and rarely publish—unless they are paparazzi. Yet they keep the same kind of notes, and their outcome is also to gain something in their favor.

Animal researchers claim that knowing about other beings and their surroundings helps us understand ourselves better. Can it not be similar—if not the same—for a thoughtful stalker?

In today’s world of equality and animal rights activism, all this is tolerated and even celebrated. But this is an important question no one wants to answer: whether it is a stalker or an animal researcher, if their motives cause discomfort to the subject, then it is a questionable matter.