• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sexual Perversion

Angel said:
Once again thanks for the considered post.
Once again the analysis/argument of your post is entirely reasonable and sound.
Civilization is in an important sense about control, order, restriction, and as such is in significant ways antithetical to nature. I don't see anything I can reasonably disagree with in your post.

At the same time I don't see your argument/analysis as a counterargument to the OP thesis that acculturated sexuality is a perversion of natural sexuality.

Am I missing your point?

I don't want to miss it, and so I welcome correction.

Your lion is not consciously following a script in being a lion, but there is a script nevertheless, is there not? We human beings read that script for the lion, to account for the lion's behavior. But the lion is just being himself.
In the case of our own behavior, we human beings have developed our own script (=culture), to be sure. But are we not also aware of another script, from which our own has departed -- another deeper script much like the lion's?
Click to expand...

I guess let me try it this way, and we should split this into two parts. What civilization is in the human sense, and what happens with other life (animals with my example.)

One of the things I was trying to get in this thread is we have both archaeological and anthropological evidence that as hunter-gatherer groups started to become larger, which could be argued was a transition point to becoming more agricultural based (or community based,) that was the moment humans started to observe ideological patterns suggesting social order. To your point these groups needed a means of order to know who was responsible for what. For the purposes of this thread one of the transitions was humanity reproducing more in the animal sense, or "natural law" sense, to one that was more socially organized. A man and a woman or women, the idea of marriage and property, aristocracy, etc. all became influencers to that natural law and what was birthed through human evolution was ideological influences into someone's place in a society.

Why we do what we do, or what we are allowed to do, was not about "natural law" but order. That is really my point, in that ideological determinations on what we can and cannot do are adversarial to "natural law."

One classic example, often discussed in various academia, is the question of monogamy being natural... or "natural law" applying. Humanity came up with that idea, which is not found very often among even other mammals let alone other classifications. It can be found but we do not have very much understanding of why some animals do, others not at all. But across human cultures monogamy is found far more than otherwise. We then took it to the next step and introduced the idea as a means of social order. Marriage being one of the strongest controls of that idea.

To your point, our confines for what should happen between a man and a woman are not necessarily about "natural law" but more what we are suggesting it should be for whatever ideological set of reasons that mostly terminate with control. In that context, "acculturated sexuality is a perversion of natural sexuality." We can argue right and wrong, but the idea is sound.

You using the word "script" is a bit of a curve ball.

That is also control, just a nicer word for putting words in someone else's mouth telling them what to say. In this context, putting defined confines of actions into someone else's head telling them what they are to do. Again, not very natural but definitely restricting.

(Note, I am not saying all forms of restriction are bad... just trying to illustrate that controls are often adversarial to natural instincts even if they are for the better of a society.)
 
Angel said:
Is it your point that everything sexual is natural? That in matters of sexuality perversion is impossible by definition? Have I read you aright?
Click to expand...

Basically, yes.

I can't choose what I'm attracted to. My environment plays a huge role, but ultimately, its outside of my choice. Ergo, words like deviance and prevention have little to no meaning when applied to sex. Why would I be deviant, for engaging in a desire that's outside of my control?
 
HonestJoe said:
Angel said:
...That is to say, the whole concept of perversion of sexuality derives from the perversion of sexuality. That is my point, or rather that is the starting point for my thesis.
Click to expand...
Well sorry, but you’re doing a really bad job in getting that across then. I’m still not clear what you’re actually trying to say.
Angel said:
I see that thesis as a heuristic toward gaining a broader or perhaps deeper perspective on the concept of human sexuality -- a broader or deeper perspective from which to reconsider "things like consent, age-limits, marriage, monogamy and parental responsibility."

We don't have to go completely Freudian to see that the repression and control of animal or natural sexuality in mankind has proved problematic for civilization.
Click to expand...
There are advantages and disadvantages plus a whole range of impacts based on how we address these things. A singular focus isn’t going to help – it’s as much part of the problem in the first place.
Click to expand...
My apologies for my lack of clarity, Joe. I'll try to do better here.

I agree with you on the importance of "how we address" the matter of human sexuality, and "a singular focus" may indeed be problematic, depending on the focus.

So here is your post, to which I thought I'd given a clear reply. I'll try again below.

HonestJoe said:
Is perversion the right word or are you just using it for its visceral impact? If we’re talking about something common to human society as a whole, is it a perversion from the norm or just the norm itself (regardless of whether it’s good, bad or indifferent).
There is a wider fact that human intelligence and the social structures we’ve built up as a result have massively impact how our natural and instinctive processes work. Pretty much everything we want/need to do as animals is done differently because of this. That strikes me as far too wide and deep a concept to simply label as good or bad and even separating off one area as you’re doing is a much more complex prospect than you given it credit for.

The alternative to our specifically human sexuality would be to revert to the generic animal sexuality which would eliminate things like consent, age-limits, marriage, monogamy and parental responsibility. We can discuss and debate the specifics relating to all these things but I think you risk going too far condemning the whole as you appear to be doing (especially if you don’t really mean it and it is just a route to impose your preferred ideas without having those discussions and debates).
Click to expand...
If "perversion" is not the right word, would the word "distortion" pass muster with you?

There are two "norms" at issue here: the norm represented by societal sexual mores and laws, and the norm of animal or natural sexuality. The former you and I are familiar with; the latter is only known to us by analogy to the sexuality of animals in a state of nature. Evolutionary biology tells us that at some stage in the evolution of the human being the distant relative of today's human being was itself an animal in the state of nature. En route to becoming distinctly human, or at some point after becoming distinctly human, animal or natural sexuality gave way to civilized sexuality.

Within the realm of civilized sexuality human being has developed a whole set of rules and regulations governing sexual behavior. One part of these civilized rules and regulations is the demarcation between normal and perverted sexuality.

My thesis is that civilized sexuality is the original perversion (or distortion, if you prefer) of animal or natural sexuality, and that our present-day judgments about sexual perversion or deviance are in fact the judgments of the accepted perversion of natural sexuality upon the unacceptable perversion of civilized sexuality.
 
KevinKohler said:
Basically, yes.

I can't choose what I'm attracted to. My environment plays a huge role, but ultimately, its outside of my choice. Ergo, words like deviance and prevention have little to no meaning when applied to sex. Why would I be deviant, for engaging in a desire that's outside of my control?
Click to expand...
We are in agreement then.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I guess let me try it this way, and we should split this into two parts. What civilization is in the human sense, and what happens with other life (animals with my example.)

One of the things I was trying to get in this thread is we have both archaeological and anthropological evidence that as hunter-gatherer groups started to become larger, which could be argued was a transition point to becoming more agricultural based (or community based,) that was the moment humans started to observe ideological patterns suggesting social order. To your point these groups needed a means of order to know who was responsible for what. For the purposes of this thread one of the transitions was humanity reproducing more in the animal sense, or "natural law" sense, to one that was more socially organized. A man and a woman or women, the idea of marriage and property, aristocracy, etc. all became influencers to that natural law and what was birthed through human evolution was ideological influences into someone's place in a society.

Why we do what we do, or what we are allowed to do, was not about "natural law" but order. That is really my point, in that ideological determinations on what we can and cannot do are adversarial to "natural law."

One classic example, often discussed in various academia, is the question of monogamy being natural... or "natural law" applying. Humanity came up with that idea, which is not found very often among even other mammals let alone other classifications. It can be found but we do not have very much understanding of why some animals do, others not at all. But across human cultures monogamy is found far more than otherwise. We then took it to the next step and introduced the idea as a means of social order. Marriage being one of the strongest controls of that idea.

To your point, our confines for what should happen between a man and a woman are not necessarily about "natural law" but more what we are suggesting it should be for whatever ideological set of reasons that mostly terminate with control. In that context, "acculturated sexuality is a perversion of natural sexuality." We can argue right and wrong, but the idea is sound.

You using the word "script" is a bit of a curve ball.

That is also control, just a nicer word for putting words in someone else's mouth telling them what to say. In this context, putting defined confines of actions into someone else's head telling them what they are to do. Again, not very natural but definitely restricting.

(Note, I am not saying all forms of restriction are bad... just trying to illustrate that controls are often adversarial to natural instincts even if they are for the better of a society.)
Click to expand...
I am in complete accord with yet another incisive post of yours. Where, as you see it, does our disagreement lie? The various "influencers" you have mentioned as well as the role of ideology in imposing order on our animal nature, all account for our distinctive human sexuality. Yours is a fair and accurate encapsulation of the case.

Honest Joe has criticized my use of the word "perversion" in this context. Is that perhaps where our difference lies as well?
 
Angel said:
I am in complete accord with yet another incisive post of yours. Where, as you see it, does our disagreement lie? The various "influencers" you have mentioned as well as the role of ideology in imposing order on our animal nature, all account for our distinctive human sexuality. Yours is a fair and accurate encapsulation of the case.

Honest Joe has criticized my use of the word "perversion" in this context. Is that perhaps where our difference lies as well?
Click to expand...

Usually the disagreements come down to ideological leans, and I am doing my best to make as little assumptions as possible.

I tend to lean more classical liberal politically, and in terms of sexuality that arguably means I subscribe to an ideology that grants far more latitude for sexual behaviors vs. someone who arguably subscribed to an ideology rooted in one of the many religious influences out there.

At the risk of this coming off as picking on beliefs, Catholicism or strict Islam both suggest that homosexuality is "not natural" and therefor should be forbidden. Where as I believe that it is not my place to be telling other consenting adults what they do. To that end and generally speaking those who have strong beliefs like that tend to lean towards appealing to government to at least influence society based on their beliefs, in the more extreme cases appeal to theocratic leanings to enforce those beliefs. The point being that in that context, neither my opinion or that of my opposition is really about "natural law." Not really, just varying degrees on opinion of what is acceptable sexually. Me being less judgmental of others than my social conservative counterparts.

The problem with the term "perversion" is the definition.

We do have two distinct uses of the phrase. The more mild definition saying alteration of something from its original course or meaning, with the more harsh definition being any sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable. The former has room for discussion, arguably, with the latter being more judgmental and definitive so probably not.

From my chair these conversations usually come down to how much social control is needed, who is doing the controlling, and to what ends.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Usually the disagreements come down to ideological leans, and I am doing my best to make as little assumptions as possible.

I tend to lean more classical liberal politically, and in terms of sexuality that arguably means I subscribe to an ideology that grants far more latitude for sexual behaviors vs. someone who arguably subscribed to an ideology rooted in one of the many religious influences out there.

At the risk of this coming off as picking on beliefs, Catholicism or strict Islam both suggest that homosexuality is "not natural" and therefor should be forbidden. Where as I believe that it is not my place to be telling other consenting adults what they do. To that end and generally speaking those who have strong beliefs like that tend to lean towards appealing to government to at least influence society based on their beliefs, in the more extreme cases appeal to theocratic leanings to enforce those beliefs. The point being that in that context, neither my opinion or that of my opposition is really about "natural law." Not really, just varying degrees on opinion of what is acceptable sexually. Me being less judgmental of others than my social conservative counterparts.

The problem with the term "perversion" is the definition.

We do have two distinct uses of the phrase. The more mild definition saying alteration of something from its original course or meaning, with the more harsh definition being any sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable. The former has room for discussion, arguably, with the latter being more judgmental and definitive so probably not.

From my chair these conversations usually come down to how much social control is needed, who is doing the controlling, and to what ends.
Click to expand...
I am using the word in its "more mild definition saying alteration of something from its original course or meaning," and I have no hidden political or religious agenda. I see religion and politics as parts of the suite of perverters of our natural sexuality in the perversion that has accompanied the civilizing process.
 
Angel said:
I am using the word in its "more mild definition saying alteration of something from its original course or meaning," and I have no hidden political or religious agenda. I see religion and politics as parts of the suite of perverters of our natural sexuality in the perversion that has accompanied the civilizing process.
Click to expand...

Then our opinions may not be all that different, against the landscape of opinions out there on the subject.

(Great discussion by the way, been a while around here so thank you for that.)
 
In other words, we are all sexual perverts
Click to expand...

Okay I'm guilty and so is my girlfriend. We have casual sex and we get little rough(ruff). Perhaps this where the perversion definition takes effect.

the perversion of human sexuality by civilization itself in the first instance
Click to expand...

Every man and woman for themselves. I don't know about her but I am not going to be civilized having sex with my girlfriend. Fun fun fun until her daddy takes her T-Bird away. I'll give her a Lexus.
 
Angel said:
We are in agreement then.
Click to expand...

Yep.


I figure, the only thing someone can really bring about this, would be things we don't allow, legally. Like sex with miners.

But the law is simply a written representation of someone's beliefs at the time.
 
KevinKohler said:
...I figure, the only thing someone can really bring about this, would be things we don't allow, legally. Like sex with miners.
...
Click to expand...
Yes, that inevitable objection follows the Godwins Law for discussions of sexuality. But I wonder how prevalent that sort of thing is in animal or natural sexuality? And I'd be surprised if there are any -- any -- evolutionary biological studies on this. Moreover, the intuitive question here is to what extent that perversion of human sexuality is the result of the original perversion of animal or natural sexuality?
 
HonestJoe said:
Well sorry, but you’re doing a really bad job in getting that across then. I’m still not clear what you’re actually trying to say...
Click to expand...
Angel said:
My apologies for my lack of clarity, Joe. I'll try to do better here.

I agree with you on the importance of "how we address" the matter of human sexuality, and "a singular focus" may indeed be problematic, depending on the focus.

So here is your post, to which I thought I'd given a clear reply. I'll try again below.


If "perversion" is not the right word, would the word "distortion" pass muster with you?

There are two "norms" at issue here: the norm represented by societal sexual mores and laws, and the norm of animal or natural sexuality. The former you and I are familiar with; the latter is only known to us by analogy to the sexuality of animals in a state of nature. Evolutionary biology tells us that at some stage in the evolution of the human being the distant relative of today's human being was itself an animal in the state of nature. En route to becoming distinctly human, or at some point after becoming distinctly human, animal or natural sexuality gave way to civilized sexuality.

Within the realm of civilized sexuality human being has developed a whole set of rules and regulations governing sexual behavior. One part of these civilized rules and regulations is the demarcation between normal and perverted sexuality.

My thesis is that civilized sexuality is the original perversion (or distortion, if you prefer) of animal or natural sexuality, and that our present-day judgments about sexual perversion or deviance are in fact the judgments of the accepted perversion of natural sexuality upon the unacceptable perversion of civilized sexuality.
Click to expand...

Then two nights of crickets.

Say it ain't so, Joe!
 
Must have missed a notification, it happens;

Angel said:
If "perversion" is not the right word, would the word "distortion" pass muster with you?
Click to expand...
I think "change" or "development" would be better, something neutral. My issue is the presumption that the change must be unconditionally negative.

Angel said:
En route to becoming distinctly human, or at some point after becoming distinctly human, animal or natural sexuality gave way to civilized sexuality.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t draw such a hard line. We still have that same animal sexuality because we’re still animals. All species respond to their fundamental urges to reproduce differently and those responses can be vastly different and can shift over time as they evolve. We’re no different in that, it is just that our unique (so far!) evolution of higher intelligence means that we respond to these things consciously as well as instinctively (for good or bad).

Angel said:
My thesis is that civilized sexuality is the original perversion (or distortion, if you prefer) of animal or natural sexuality, and that our present-day judgments about sexual perversion or deviance are in fact the judgments of the accepted perversion of natural sexuality upon the unacceptable perversion of civilized sexuality.
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t think it’s clear cut. There are a whole range of advantages and disadvantages, benefits and risks to our “civilisation” of sexuality, just as there is for the other fundamental aspects of life (food, shelter, conflict, childhood etc.). You surely can’t be saying that all aspects of civilised sexuality are bad and that we should throw it all out to revert to purely animal instincts.

You could certainly argue that some of our difficulties with different expressions of sexuality only exist because of that civilised aspect but the animal aspect creates at least as many difficulties. In theory at least, we should be able to benefit from that unique advanced intelligence to understand the long term consequences of our actions and reach the best conclusions from that, finding a balance that minimises the difficulties and problems. I think that is largely what we do in this area, it’s just that, like everything else, it isn’t perfect. :cool:
 
KevinKohler said:
Yep.


I figure, the only thing someone can really bring about this, would be things we don't allow, legally. Like sex with miners.

But the law is simply a written representation of someone's beliefs at the time.
Click to expand...
Those miners do get very dirty.
 
Nothing people do when it comes to sex surprises me. And **** the people who want to impose their idea of sexual morality onto others. Go get laid, you'll feel better.
 
bongsaway said:
Nothing people do when it comes to sex surprises me. And **** the people who want to impose their idea of sexual morality onto others. Go get laid, you'll feel better.
Click to expand...

If all of the participants are of legal age and all agree to what's going on then it is nobody's business but their own.
 
bongsaway said:
Nothing people do when it comes to sex surprises me. And **** the people who want to impose their idea of sexual morality onto others. Go get laid, you'll feel better.
Click to expand...

Sex.




Its only a problem for people who aren't having it.
 
KevinKohler said:
Sex.


Its only a problem for people who aren't having it.
Click to expand...

QrhQkROl.jpg
 
bongsaway said:
Nothing people do when it comes to sex surprises me. And **** the people who want to impose their idea of sexual morality onto others. Go get laid, you'll feel better.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear.
But does your "**** the people who want to impose their idea of sexual morality onto others" include lawmakers, who presumably speak for the people?
 
Angel said:
Sexual Perversion

Qath1akl.jpg


Disclaimer

Sorry to disappoint the prurient interest in slamming paraphilia which some of the locals seem to have,
but this thread is not about sexual perversion or sexual deviance as defined by the DSM-5,
or sexual perversion or deviance according to any other definition of sexual perversion or deviance that might fall under present-day sexual mores,
or for that matter any civilized notion of sexual perversion from any day and age in the last ten thousand years or so

I repeat, lest there be any misunderstanding on this score,
this thread is not about the sexual perversions we love to hate today
or the sexual perversions that our ancestors loved to hate

This thread is about the perversion of human sexuality by civilization itself in the first instance

the perversion of natural sexuality through the civilizing process

and then, in the second instance, over the last half-century, the perversion of the perversion of human sexuality by radical feminism


The thesis of this thread is as follows:

Civilization is sexual perversion

In other words, we are all sexual perverts

And our outrage at what appears to be sexual perversion according to the sexual mores of our day

is merely sexual perversion judging sexual perversion...


Comment?

Cavil?

Consternation?​



If you find the above disclaimer or thesis strange and difficult to understand, reading in the following series of threads arguing for a revaluation of sexual values is highly recommended:
Sexual Politics
Sexual Hypocrisy
Sexual Misconduct
Sexual Philosophy
Click to expand...

I've been reading this for a couple of days now I'm trying to wrap my head around it and I'm not quite sure.

So what I understand is civilization by existing has perverted sexuality. Not necessarily because drove it into the bedroom or private places but because it took us out of our natural habitat?

Please tell me if I got this wrong
 
Angel said:
Hear, hear.
But does your "**** the people who want to impose their idea of sexual morality onto others" include lawmakers, who presumably speak for the people?
Click to expand...

When it comes to what two consenting adults want to do sexually, hell yeah.
 
CLAX1911 said:
I've been reading this for a couple of days now I'm trying to wrap my head around it and I'm not quite sure.

So what I understand is civilization by existing has perverted sexuality. Not necessarily because drove it into the bedroom or private places but because it took us out of our natural habitat?

Please tell me if I got this wrong
Click to expand...
Right as rain, CLAX.
It follows from this premise that those of our fellows critical of the sexuality of others as "perverted" are merely speaking with the authority of their own perversion.
 
zyzygy said:
If all of the participants are of legal age and all agree to what's going on then it is nobody's business but their own.
Click to expand...
KevinKohler said:
Sex.

Its only a problem for people who aren't having it.
Click to expand...
Freudianism
Freudian beliefs and practices, particularly the mechanism of psychological repression, the centrality of sexual desire to the development of the persona, and the efficacy of the "talking cure" or psychoanalytic technique.
Click to expand...
Freudianism - Wiktionary
 
Why are some people so interested in other people's sexual behaviour? Very odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom