Sexual Perversion

[Angel]

It's a perverted thesis.

I agree. But then my thesis is a postlapsarian idea, isn't it? So of course it is perverted.

 

[Peter King]

You do not understand the thesis of this thread, Peter. It is not religious in the least; it is in fact scientific. And it is closer to your "People before it enjoyed sex as a natural part of life," which you think contradicts the OP thesis.

'Your comment on feminism shows a similar misunderstanding.

Your words:

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

Which I addressed as nonsense, civilization did not make "sexual perverts", other civilizations did not pervert sexuality, Christianity did (and Islam/Judaism). Which is me disagreeing with your comments about it being the "fault" of civilization.

And do not have any misunderstanding about feminism with regard to sexuality, it does not talk about the rest of the feminist ideologies but purely about them standing up for their rights with regarding to sex. That it is not something men can demand due to marriage. That women have the right to determine and enjoy sex.

 

[Angel]

Your words:



Which I addressed as nonsense, civilization did not make "sexual perverts", other civilizations did not pervert sexuality, Christianity did (and Islam/Judaism). Which is me disagreeing with your comments about it being the "fault" of civilization.

And do not have any misunderstanding about feminism with regard to sexuality, it does not talk about the rest of the feminist ideologies but purely about them standing up for their rights with regarding to sex. That it is not something men can demand due to marriage. That women have the right to determine and enjoy sex.

Enjoy the onanistic posting, Peter. Your calling my thesis nonsense and then proposing an anti-religious thesis of your own is not going to fly in my thread. Your denial is denied. There. Dame foes for your tendentious mention of feminism. Dorry, but I've had it with the gassing in our forum and will not tolerate it when directed at me.

You don't understand the thesis of this thread. Shop elsewhere for approval.

 

[Peter King]

Enjoy the onanistic posting, Peter. Your calling my thesis nonsense and then proposing an anti-religious thesis of your own is not going to fly in my thread. Your denial is denied. There. Dame foes for your tendentious mention of feminism. Dorry, but I've had it with the gassing in our forum and will not tolerate it when directed at me.

You don't understand the thesis of this thread. Shop elsewhere for approval.

Yes, your thesis is nonsense because it claims it is down to civilization, which I already stated is nonsensical because the issue of the perversion of natural love making is totally a religious concept of the Christian variety. To claim that is anti-religious is nonsense again. It is a factual description why our current civilizations have been so prude and unbending towards the concept of sex being a natural and good thing, something totally natural and almost always not perverse. Regular sex was made unnatural and perverse by religions.

And you might have started this thread but you do not get to decide why people disagree with you and how they properly and factually disagree with your views. And I am not gassing, I am talking about a serious subject, the subject as how religion has caused our Western society to have such a dim view on the issue of making love between 2 consenting adults who perform just normal sexual acts.

And I understand your thesis (I think) and if not, then maybe it is due to your convoluted description of what your thesis supposedly is. So I go back to your "Thesis":

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...

And I respond that I disagree that we are all sexual perverts, that is what religion has told people who live in our society to think. And that makes religion claiming we are all sexual perverts.

And it is "societies" religious inclinations that makes people think of themselves and others that they are sexual perverts (well, not mine as I am not religious). In fact it is societies religious dictate on what perversion is that makes us view normal sexual behavior as perverse acts because religion has taught society that only what god thinks of sex is sex that is not perverse, all other sex acts are perverse.

I just happen to disagree with your thesis. And my posts were an explanation about that.

As to your claim about feminism, that too is religiously determined. Religion has told women to be subservient to men and that they must repress their own natural sexual urges, something feminism disputes and disagrees with.

 

[Peter King]

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?

I agree with the laws being made by governments, but a lot of those governments/rulers did so on the say/at the direction of religious leaders or religious political party. Thus writing the views of the church into the laws of a lot of countries. This has formed a culture of highly prude views on sex and sexuality.

And natural law is not usually written into the laws of most countries because nobody championed those views as having views like that could be hazardous to their health.

 

[Rich2018]

You don't have to agree with it. It is factual.

I don't think so

Give an example of what you mean.

 

[Rich2018]

The thinking is that it somehow destroys the moral fabric of society, making an untrustworthy culture. In Western culture, that ship has already sailed.

Making people deny their sexuality and conform to yours destroys the moral faric of society?

What activities do you specifically object to?

 

[Rich2018]

Enjoy the onanistic posting, Peter. Your calling my thesis nonsense and then proposing an anti-religious thesis of your own is not going to fly in my thread. Your denial is denied. There. Dame foes for your tendentious mention of feminism. Dorry, but I've had it with the gassing in our forum and will not tolerate it when directed at me.

You don't understand the thesis of this thread. Shop elsewhere for approval.

What activities do you object to?

What sexual activities do you think cause actual harm?

 

[lwf]

A thoughtful and articulate post right on topic ten pages into a thread few have shown any interest in or understanding of -- where level of interest is a function of lack of understanding -- and this near despairing member, starved for intelligent discussion here in Sex and Sexuality, as previously in Abortion and before that in Beliefs and Skepticism, is much obliged to you for it.

Reply Proper: While you are correct in predicting that upsurges of animal or natural sexuality within a social culture would be problematic, I don't believe that negates the OP thesis that culture is -- indeed requires -- the perversion of animal or natural sexuality.

I agree, though I would use the word "control" as opposed to "perversion." Perversion is a subjective label that applies to different and sometimes contradictory behaviors in different cultures. What constitutes perversion in one culture is normal behavior in another. The only thing they have in common is that sexual urges are controlled by and filtered through cultural rules and mores which change over time. Particularly egregious transgressions of these subjective cultural mores tend to get labeled "perversion."

 

[Peter King]

All sexuality is deterred by restrictions.

Yes, legal deterrence, social deterrence, religious deterrence, moral deterrence and internal restrictions of what someone feels good about.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, legal deterrence, social deterrence, religious deterrence, moral deterrence and internal restrictions of what someone feels good about.

A man wants to lie with his wife and she wants ti lie with him.

 

[Peter King]

A man wants to lie with his wife and she wants ti lie with him.

Yes? And what does this have to do with deterrence? It is his wife and having sex with her is mostly free from any deterrence from restrictions.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes? And what does this have to do with deterrence? It is his wife and having sex with her is mostly free from any deterrence from restrictions.

It is not restricted, to counter a previous point.

I indicated consent from both parties.

 

[Angel]

Your words:
Which I addressed as nonsense, civilization did not make "sexual perverts", other civilizations did not pervert sexuality, Christianity did (and Islam/Judaism). Which is me disagreeing with your comments about it being the "fault" of civilization....

Yes, your thesis is nonsense because it claims it is down to civilization, which I already stated is nonsensical because the issue of the perversion of natural love making is totally a religious concept of the Christian variety. To claim that is anti-religious is nonsense again. It is a factual description why our current civilizations have been so prude and unbending towards the concept of sex being a natural and good thing, something totally natural and almost always not perverse. Regular sex was made unnatural and perverse by religions.

And you might have started this thread but you do not get to decide why people disagree with you and how they properly and factually disagree with your views. And I am not gassing, I am talking about a serious subject, the subject as how religion has caused our Western society to have such a dim view on the issue of making love between 2 consenting adults who perform just normal sexual acts.

And I understand your thesis (I think) and if not, then maybe it is due to your convoluted description of what your thesis supposedly is. So I go back to your "Thesis":



And I respond that I disagree that we are all sexual perverts, that is what religion has told people who live in our society to think. And that makes religion claiming we are all sexual perverts.

And it is "societies" religious inclinations that makes people think of themselves and others that they are sexual perverts (well, not mine as I am not religious). In fact it is societies religious dictate on what perversion is that makes us view normal sexual behavior as perverse acts because religion has taught society that only what god thinks of sex is sex that is not perverse, all other sex acts are perverse.

I just happen to disagree with your thesis. And my posts were an explanation about that.

As to your claim about feminism, that too is religiously determined. Religion has told women to be subservient to men and that they must repress their own natural sexual urges, something feminism disputes and disagrees with.

Sorry if I came across as pugnacious in my first reply, Peter. Chalk it up to frustration as no one except lwf appears to understand the OP thesis.

Your replies merely dismiss that thesis out of hand and substitute your own thesis about the corrupting influence of religion on sexuality. In short, you simply change the subject.

Lest we go round in circles, let me say that religion has had a restrictive and distorting effect on human sexuality, but so has politics, art, science and the rest of human culture.
None of that is my particular concern in this thread. My concern in this thread is general, namely, that all of that acculturation has distorted (perverted, corrupted, altered) human natural sexuality.

That's the topic I'd like to discuss.

 

[Peter King]

Sorry if I came across as pugnacious in my first reply, Peter. Chalk it up to frustration as no one except lwf appears to understand the OP thesis.

Your replies merely dismiss that thesis out of hand and substitute your own thesis about the corrupting influence of religion on sexuality. In short, you simply change the subject.

Lest we go round in circles, let me say that religion has had a restrictive and distorting effect on human sexuality, but so has politics, art, science and the rest of human culture.
None of that is my particular concern in this thread. My concern in this thread is general, namely, that all of that acculturation has distorted (perverted, corrupted, altered) human natural sexuality.

That's the topic I'd like to discuss.

Of course politics, art, science and the rest of human culture has played a part, but you would hopefully agree that in the West, those things (politics, art, science and the rest of human culture) were until the late part of the 19th century to the later part of the 20th century, heavily influenced by both religions in about equal measure.

And yes, the natural free enjoyment of human sexuality has been perverted/corrupted/altered through the centuries since man was extremely primitive and had no real concept of society. But since the sexual revolution, that natural sexuality that humans have has been freed up to some degree. Especially in young people of previous generations. But the objectification of women is hindering the free human love of making love IMHO. As well as peer pressure, the internet and social media. Young people of today have unrealistic expectations of each other IMO, made worse by pornography which objectifies women and makes them look to enjoy what really only men enjoy. No women really is going to get sexual pleasure by a man shooting his male juices on a woman's chest of face.

And a great deal of this can be solved by parents honestly talking to their children about sexuality and ending the prude public shaming of people having sexual feelings and talking about them in a healthy way.

 

[Angel]

I agree, though I would use the word "control" as opposed to "perversion." Perversion is a subjective label that applies to different and sometimes contradictory behaviors in different cultures. What constitutes perversion in one culture is normal behavior in another. The only thing they have in common is that sexual urges are controlled by and filtered through cultural rules and mores which change over time. Particularly egregious transgressions of these subjective cultural mores tend to get labeled "perversion."

To be sure, "perversion" is a strong word carrying a strong negative valuation, and "control" is a neutral word fairly free of connotation. I wanted a strong word to drive home the point that all of mankind's various judgments of perversion -- and your breakdown of the word and concept is spot on -- all mores and morals and rules and laws, etc. -- all derive from an Original Perversion, and as such are basically Perversion's judgments of perversion. The word "control" does not give me that, not at the same rhetorical pitch at any rate.

 

[lwf]

To be sure, "perversion" is a strong word carrying a strong negative valuation, and "control" is a neutral word fairly free of connotation. I wanted a strong word to drive home the point that all of mankind's various judgments of perversion -- and your breakdown of the word and concept is spot on -- all mores and morals and rules and laws, etc. -- all derive from an Original Perversion, and as such are basically Perversion's judgments of perversion. The word "control" does not give me that, not at the same rhetorical pitch at any rate.

It sounds to me like the "Original Perversion" is simply when animals began to live together in groups. Once animals start to live together, the natural survival instinct of immediately eating something that happens to look delicious is no longer beneficial, since doing so could now threaten its position in the group. Sexuality is no different.

I get that you were looking for a dramatic word, but mutually beneficial cooperation doesn't seem like perversion at all to me. It does seem like control, however. By controlling others in the group, and submitting to the control of others as warranted, I increase my odds of survival and procreation. I get the impression that you are equivocating the transgression of those rules with the rules themselves.

 

[devildavid]

You do not understand the thesis of this thread, Peter. It is not religious in the least; it is in fact scientific. And it is closer to your "People before it enjoyed sex as a natural part of life," which you think contradicts the OP thesis.

'Your comment on feminism shows a similar misunderstanding.

Science has nothing to say about perversion. It is not a scientific concept.

 

[Rich2018]

...my concern in this thread is general, namely, that all of that acculturation has distorted (perverted, corrupted, altered) human natural sexuality.

That's the topic I'd like to discuss.

True but so what?

Is the world a worse place for that?

 

[devildavid]

I don't think so

Give an example of what you mean.

All animals face restrictions when it comes to sexual activity due to what behaviors conflict with the general norms of their species.

 

[Rich2018]

All animals face restrictions when it comes to sexual activity due to what behaviors conflict with the general norms of their species.

I'm not aware that consential sex, inside a recognized marriage, in private conflicts with any general norm, anywhere in the word.

 

[devildavid]

I'm not aware that consential sex, inside a recognized marriage, in private conflicts with any general norm, anywhere in the word.

But sex within a marriage is not necessarily always consensual. So sometimes it conflicts with the accepted norms of marital sex.

 

[Peter King]

All animals face restrictions when it comes to sexual activity due to what behaviors conflict with the general norms of their species.

That were true if not for the Bonobo apes, they are mostly free from those restrictions because sex is their thing. They solve conflict and stress through sexual behavior. They do not have the issue of male apes being dominant of the female apes by intimidation/fear and outright violence, especially sexual violence.

And that is in part because Bonobo sciety in a matriarchy and not a patriarchy. Bonobo's are in many ways a species mostly free from societal restrictions on sexual behavior and activity.

 

[Angel]

Science has nothing to say about perversion. It is not a scientific concept.

Thus Spake Zarathustra

(waving the DSM-5)

 

[Angel]

It sounds to me like the "Original Perversion" is simply when animals began to live together in groups. Once animals start to live together, the natural survival instinct of immediately eating something that happens to look delicious is no longer beneficial, since doing so could now threaten its position in the group. Sexuality is no different.

I get that you were looking for a dramatic word, but mutually beneficial cooperation doesn't seem like perversion at all to me. It does seem like control, however. By controlling others in the group, and submitting to the control of others as warranted, I increase my odds of survival and procreation. I get the impression that you are equivocating the transgression of those rules with the rules themselves.

A point well taken: the control (my "perversion") was necessary to the formation of society, yes. (As I recall, Hobbes and Rousseau both agree on this point.)

As for possible equivocation on my part, let me see: I say the original exertion or imposition of control over natural sexuality, however necessary to social order, constituted a "perversion" of natural sexuality. Subsequently (and three million years subsequent at that) the transgression of that imposed control was considered perversion within the context of social order. Am I equivocating here or contextualizing, that is to say, to coin a word, univocating across contexts?

But I guess the question to me is: What's the point of pointing this out? Yes?