Sexual Perversion

Angel said:

Sexual Perversion

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...

Angel said:

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?[/CENTER]

Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Click to expand...

zyzygy said:

And a badly formatted rant is just a rant.

Click to expand...

swing_voter said:

If OP is willing to share what their kink is, we can have a vote on just how perverted it is.

Click to expand...

zyzygy said:

Thesis? How can a rant in a bold font be a thesis?

Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Click to expand...

OrphanSlug said:

You might have a little bit of a revisionist view of some history on all this.

I am not entirely convinced that "the civilizing process" in the context of your OP is the sole reason for what you are seeing, nor am I convinced that it is necessarily a bad thing to see a shift from the notion of sex exclusively for reproduction to what we see throughout the human history in terms of sexuality for any reason.

It all comes down to perception of purpose, influenced by the perceptions of human motivations.

If you subscribe to an ideology(s) that suggests sexuality has but one purpose only then it would be basic to conclude that any deviation from that is a perversion, but that becomes immediately argumentative the moment we conclude that our natural state has far more influencers than natural instincts to reproduce. We have motivations and influencers spanning roots in logic to roots in emotion.

Not a bit of that is necessarily wrong, but may become wrong when looking to organize society in any context.

When looking through just the confines of human history, "natural sexuality" in your context started to fade out the moment hunter-gatherers needed to deal with order within their respective structures. We have both archaeological and anthropological evidence that as these pockets of humanity started to grow so did the idea of order, and that arguably became an influencer or 'purpose' for sex taking things slightly away from the idea of "natural sexuality." Even before the first large groups became organized societies migrating away from hunter-gatherers we already started to see ranking among those within a society which influenced when reproduction occurred. Human reproduction was already divorced from your idea of "natural sexuality."

The moment societies started to form, the idea of placing men with women (or even multiple women depending on their place in society) "natural sexuality" was removed from the equation. Aristocracy and place in society, social structure and the earliest notions of marriage (which was not about love or religion, but property,) birth right and name, economics and ownership, <insert any term here> all are influencers into human sexuality from that point forward up to today.

"Natural sexuality" was dead long before humans started recording what they were doing.

Our argument then is back to what I was saying above, attempts to organize society through ideology (especially religious and/or political) is a means to restrict. But that should not be confused with a movement back to "natural sexuality" but rather just some other set of confines for sexuality that is anything but natural.

I guess you could conclude we are all sexual perverts, but that is overly simplistic thinking. We are just humans with untold numbers of influencers driving how we define doing something with what we think or feel.

Humanity has moved well beyond any sense of "natural sexuality," and even in the most strict social controlled societies out there it is still not achieved. Social order and ideologies behind them always trump any concept of sexuality exclusively for natural intentions, without exception.

So you are right in that civilization is sexual perversion, but not for the reasons you are thinking. "Radical feminism" is just another influencer, among *many* others including your own.

Click to expand...

Oborosen said:

Firstly, the day civilization began to grow. This idea of seeing human sexuality as perversion was inevitable.

When you have enough people who gather together and share views, or taste for that matter. There are no doubt going to be those either left behind, or hated for what it is that they perceive as normal.

Sexual relations between multiple individuals was normal the further back in history you go. Not to mention the practice of selling ones body for some form of gain, which is possibly one of, if not the oldest profession one can think of.

It's a sorry form of evolution of society. Though such cases, one can see things become acceptable, such as the standard forms of relationships. While aspects of some relationships tend to fall so easily between the cracks.

Click to expand...

Angel said:

A generous post offering a sound analysis. Much obliged. My only disagreement is that the case for "natural sexuality" is "simplistic thinking." I think it cuts through all the cultural noise about sexuality and gets to the reality of the matter. Culture, politics, religion, etc., have perverted the matter beyond recognition, as I see the case.

Think of it in these terms: Of all the laws governing sexuality mankind has on its record, how many are laws of nature?

Click to expand...

Angel said:

And sometimes it's bubble gum.

Click to expand...

swing_voter said:

If OP is willing to share what their kink is, we can have a vote on just how perverted it is.

Click to expand...

Angel said:

Yes, you've captured the cultural case of sexuality well, I think.

Click to expand...

KevinKohler said:

Sex is sex. Sexuality? That's virtually anything we want it to be, and on an individual basis, is.

Natures law on sexuality is simple. Somethings, are sexual, to some things. Every species has something they are attracted to, on an individual basis. Yes, there are norms...but even among those, there are quirks. One bird might like something in a prospective mate that other same species birds don't.

Some guys are attracted to women's feet, and some gals like mens hands. Or backs. Its only meaningful on an individual basis. And anything goes. If it wasn't "natural", why would it exist? Do guys who like women's feet choose to do so? Can you choose to like brussel sprouts?

Click to expand...

Angel said:

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

Click to expand...

Oborosen said:

More like I cut it as bare bones as possible. But thanks anyway.

We're talking about human civilization in general when it comes to how such a them evolves. Which means that would need to account for possibly 200k years of theoretical, mental, physical, and societal evolution.
Tribes in the earliest form villages of Africa, started out walking across the land with barely anything to cover themselves, and only did so when the weather permitted the necessity.

Now you have parts of the world where you are required to either completely conceal yourself despite the weather, or are allowed to go almost without a stitch if you're so inclined to do so.

Weighing all of that information against such a topic. Would be like hammering a thumbtack, with a 15b sledgehammer.

Click to expand...

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...

Angel said:

At the risk of hammering that thumbtack with a sledgehammer, let me ask this question of you:
Does the "possibly 200k years" of culture so remove us from our animal nature that talking about the perversion of our animal nature (a la the OP) is frivolous?
In other words, has that animal nature been overcome to all intents and purposes, or does it still haunt mankind?

Click to expand...

Oborosen said:

Haunting mankind? No, I don't think that is what it does.

I think that when that this perversion is brought, or an attempt is made to bring it into perspective. It invariably forces the minds of others to race on what that might possibly be, and that would involve their own sensibilities, and knowledge concerning what they believe it to be.

It's going to bee exceedingly rare that two individuals would give you the same statement with that premise in mind.
I can put it up as such. I have no issue acknowledging that others might react adversely to my own taste. Sexual, or otherwise. Because I know that not everyone shares the same idea of what I might believe is acceptable. Be it a perversion of something exotic, or more fetishistic in nature.

We can all acknowledge that each of us is in some way perverse. Though we will never be able to admit it so outwardly.
In psychology we hold this as someone's understanding of "the Self". Their being, their understanding and experience all compiled into themselves.

If at the very least, we have a greater dislike for exposing ourselves in anyway that we might perceive adverse to the surrounding culture. Seeing as our culture has not only outlined what might just be considered simple debauchery, but also what might be illegal in the legal sense.

Click to expand...

Angel said:

That is my point, or rather that is the starting point for my thesis.

Click to expand...

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...

OrphanSlug said:

None, not a one of the laws governing sexuality has been about steering sexuality towards the confines of "natural sexuality."

This is going to get very philosophical.

If we define natural law as observable behavior relating to natural phenomena then you presume that natural phenomena should exist without an outside influence. To your point if it were otherwise then you would have a perversion of natural law.

The classic example, a Lion kills its prey in order to eat based on the natural instinct of survival and avoiding hunger. None of that is happening because of some written law or outside influence telling the Lion to do these things. Instinctually and for a plethora of natural reasons, a Lion kills its prey. The point being that natural law in this case is the observation of that behavior with an understanding of why it is occurring, what it is *not* is a set of methods to guide or restrict that Lion.

What that means is any effort with "laws governing sexuality" are about restrictions, usually based on some ideological set of reasons to want society to do something for a given purpose (or within the confines of an established purpose in this case.)

Because of this all these laws governing sexuality have zero to do with the laws of nature, and everything to do with control. Even if in the majority opinion, or based on some observation on what reproduction is in the biology sense, it does not mean the law equates to nature. The other classic argument is homosexual behavior is not natural, yet we can observe the behavior in animals suggesting the exact opposite. Tells us conclusively that the 'homosexuality is not natural' has nothing to do with actual observation, just some ideology saying it should not happen. Does not make the ideology right, just becomes a means to guide whatever society is influenced by some set of social restrictions.

We know that humans tend to make decisions and have behavior based on all sorts of influencers. Some of those can be natural, in the laws of nature sense, but they will also have influence from any number of ideologies and understandings that a Lion (from my example) will never fathom or care about.

We as humans decide what is right or wrong, what is ethically sound or not, what is reasonable behavior or not all based on all the understandings from all the sources humanity has ever discovered or devised along the way. Mechanisms of governance and law, mechanisms of beliefs, mechanisms of science, whatever else. All influencers.

And why? It is to your point, human civilization was not about natural law in the context you are going for but rather our evolutionary track.

Anyone telling anyone else that sexuality should only be about "natural law" is based on an ideology(s) of restrictions... an argument rooted in a belief about how things should be (even in absentee of what we observe)... that in itself means nothing to natural law. Not really. Order and restriction has nothing to do with what you observe in nature.

Click to expand...