If the impression of the podcast is "we look at stuff and then make fun of it," that's not the whole spirit of it. For my own part, I try to have my humor originate from a source different than "haha this is weird," because really, there are tons and tons of people from tons and tons of sites who do that already and it's fucking Easy Mode. Instead, I try to give a cursory monster cockysis of what we're reading and extrapolating a kind of universally-understood ridiculousness from it, something that potentially even the exhibits would have to agree is funny.
A perfect example is the boob-inflation stuff. If it was just us going "haha people who like boob inflation are weird," that would have stopped being funny about thirty seconds in. However, the writing itself served up most of the humor, and the boob-inflation as a theme took a backseat.
"Wait, her bra is cutting into her tits and denting them? That sounds like it would hurt."
"If you're into boob growth and you're here reading this because you find it hot, do you really give a shit what they're filling with?"
Another is the Superpwrful Piss story. It's a story about people holding in piss and omorashi and whatever, but it's just so badly written—and genuinely badly written, too, which is getting rarer and rarer—that it could have been in a bad-writing episode all on its own, even if the layer of fetishism wasn't there. The readers gave it the same treatment: gleaning humor from the writing rather than the subject.
The central theme which ties stuff together into an episode is more often a backdrop for the real funny stuff, which is why I don't really feel guilty. We make fun of people who have genuinely unlikeable traits about them (PUAs, bad mothers, pretentious bands), and for the people who are just weird or crazy, we get our laughs from the stuff they write, not they themselves (fetishists, new-age folks, Basil Marceaux). To me, it seems self-evident, though I think I have a hard time explaining my perspective on it.