Sexual Perversion

[Rich2018]

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

No it's not but in this instance it is,

The claim was made that there are restrictions on all sexuality, I would counter that in this instance, there are not.

 

[Rich2018]

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?

You can't define what perversion is any more than you can define pornography.

 

[lwf]

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?

I am arguing that if it is necessary for the functioning of society, then "perversion" is not an apt word to use for it. Rather, indulging in natural sexual instincts without regard for the good of society is the proper definition of perversion, and the prohibition against this indulgence is the opposite of perversion. No one is perverting sexuality by making rules about how it must work in the context of social interaction.

 

[Risky Thicket]

You can't define what perversion is any more than you can define pornography.

Risky Definition #406: sexual perversion
noun [ C or U ] disapproving UK ​ /pəˈvɜː.ʒən/ US ​ /pɚˈvɝː.ʒən/

Spending hours and hours on a political bulletin board discussing who could/should/would do what and with which and to whom.


-------


Consensual sex happens. If you are fortunate it happens frequently. It happens without guilt or trepidation. Hopefully, you receive as much pleasure as you give to your partner and hopefully your partner is ravenous.

The freer your mind the better the sex. Judgemental sex is not usually good sex. When you bring your religion's judgement, socieity's judgement, your parent's judgement, your partner's judgement or possible judgement, and even your own judgement into consenual sex it lessens the experience.

This reminds me of the old joke: "Why don't Baptists like to have sex while standing? Because they're afraid someone might see them and think they're dancing."

Most often sex becomes screwed up in your head rather than your body.

 

[Rich2018]

Risky Definition #406: sexual perversion
noun [ C or U ] disapproving UK ​ /pəˈvɜː.ʒən/ US ​ /pɚˈvɝː.ʒən/

Spending hours and hours on a political bulletin board discussing who could/should/would do what and with which and to whom.


-------


Consensual sex happens. If you are fortunate it happens frequently. It happens without guilt or trepidation. Hopefully, you receive as much pleasure as you give to your partner and hopefully your partner is ravenous.

The freer your mind the better the sex. Judgemental sex is not usually good sex. When you bring your religion's judgement, socieity's judgement, your parent's judgement, your partner's judgement or possible judgement, and even your own judgement into consenual sex it lessens the experience.

This reminds me of the old joke: "Why don't Baptists like to have sex while standing? Because they're afraid someone might see them and think they're dancing."

Most often sex becomes screwed up in your head rather than your body.

Like I said you can't define what perversion is any more than you can pornography.

Dictionaries let you know how a word is used, but they don't detail what the criteria is to meet that.

Try again.

 

[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.

Here's the rub. Your argument, the argument from necessary control to social order, is my argument as well. Your semantic argument, the argument from the vagaries and variety of judgments of "perversion" within the social order can just as well be viewed as symptomatic of a confusion that follows from perversion of natural sexuality. The difference between our views is the difference between the views of Hobbes and Rousseau, a difference based on different assumptions about the nature of man and the nature of the social order. Hobbes assumed the nature of man to be base and brutish; Rousseau held man to be by nature good. For Hobbes, the social order was therefore a good that saves man from his own nature; for Rousseau, the social order corrupted the natural man. Well, our difference, it seems to me, is something along those lines.

Whether bringing our natural sexuality under social control, under greater and greater social control over time, is to be viewed neutrally (as you wish to do) or as a corruption or a perversion (as I wish to do), it most certainly constituted a distortion of the original, and in light of the troubled sexual history of man, I find it hard to be positive or even neutral about the imposition of control.

 

[devildavid]

Here's the rub. Your argument, the argument from necessary control to social order, is my argument as well. Your semantic argument, the argument from the vagaries and variety of judgments of "perversion" within the social order can just as well be viewed as symptomatic of a confusion that follows from perversion of natural sexuality. The difference between our views is the difference between the views of Hobbes and Rousseau, a difference based on different assumptions about the nature of man and the nature of the social order. Hobbes assumed the nature of man to be base and brutish; Rousseau held man to be by nature good. For Hobbes, the social order was therefore a good that saves man from his own nature; for Rousseau, the social order corrupted the natural man. Well, our difference, it seems to me, is something along those lines.

Whether bringing our natural sexuality under social control, under greater and greater social control over time, is to be viewed neutrally (as you wish to do) or as a corruption or a perversion (as I wish to do), it most certainly constituted a distortion of the original, and in light of the troubled sexual history of man, I find it hard to be positive or even neutral about the imposition of control.

Society is natural.

 

[Angel]

Society is natural.

Thus Spake Zarathustra

Another irrelevant oracular pronouncement.
Moreover, the inconsistency of this convenient "everything is natural" dismissal of yours has been exposed -- in other posts it ends at metaphysics.

Let me introduce you to a stranger:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778)

The central claim of the work is that human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that resulted in present day civil society.

The scope of Rousseau’s project is not significantly different from that of Hobbes in the Leviathan or Locke in the Second Treatise on Government. Like them, Rousseau understands society to be an invention, and he attempts to explain the nature of human beings by stripping them of all of the accidental qualities brought about by socialization. Thus, understanding human nature amounts to understanding what humans are like in a pure state of nature.

Part one is Rousseau’s description of human beings in the pure state of nature, uncorrupted by civilization and the socialization process. And although this way of examining human nature is consistent with other modern thinkers, Rousseau’s picture of “man in his natural state,” is radically different. Hobbes describes each human in the state of nature as being in a constant state of war against all others; hence life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. But Rousseau argues that previous accounts such as Hobbes’ have all failed to actually depict humans in the true state of nature. Instead, they have taken civilized human beings and simply removed laws, government, and technology.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[devildavid]

Thus Spake Zarathustra

Another irrelevant oracular pronouncement.
Moreover, the inconsistency of this convenient "everything is natural" dismissal of yours has been exposed -- in other posts it ends at metaphysics.

Let me introduce you to a stranger:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778)

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Rousseau and Hobbes were both wrong. There is zero distinction between civilization and nature. Mankind is always in a state of nature. It isn't a choice. Civilization arises naturally from human behavior, it is not imposed on "natural" behavior.

 

[Angel]

Rousseau and Hobbes were both wrong. There is zero distinction between civilization and nature. Mankind is always in a state of nature. It isn't a choice. Civilization arises naturally from human behavior, it is not imposed on "natural" behavior.

Then, in the world according to devildavid, if devildavid cares to be consistent today, religion is natural, belief in God is natural, poetry is natural, all ideas are natural, yes?
Moreover, perfectly natural also, in the world according to devildavid, are the following derangements of sexuality: necrophilia, zoophilia, pedophilia -- yes?
Indeed, there are no transgressions of the natural order in the world according to devildavid. Nothing is against nature. Nothing, unnatural. Yes?

Thither does you broad reduction of everything to the state of nature lead.

 

[Angel]

...Thither does you broad reduction of everything to the state of nature lead.

Whither? you ask yourself.

Here's a conundrum from the education in the humanities you eschewed:

If everything is natural, then nothing is natural.
​

Society is natural.

 

[devildavid]

Then, in the world according to devildavid, if devildavid cares to be consistent today, religion is natural, belief in God is natural, poetry is natural, all ideas are natural, yes?
Moreover, perfectly natural also, in the world according to devildavid, are the following derangements of sexuality: necrophilia, zoophilia, pedophilia -- yes?
Indeed, there are no transgressions of the natural order in the world according to devildavid. Nothing is against nature. Nothing, unnatural. Yes?

Thither does you broad reduction of everything to the state of nature lead.

Yes, nothing is against or for nature. It is simply natural. Natural implies no values at all.

 

[Angel]

Yes, nothing is against or for nature. It is simply natural. Natural implies no values at all.

Your idiosyncratic notion of nature, as indicated in post #136, is a concept devoid of content. It becomes, with your contrarian reduction, a meaningless category, a useless word. You would like it to do the work of the concept "reality" -- indeed, you seem to be making it synonymous with "reality" -- but even "reality" as word and concept gets its meaning and use over against that which is "unreal."

 

[devildavid]

Your idiosyncratic notion of nature, as indicated in post #136, is a concept devoid of content. It becomes, with your contrarian reduction, a meaningless category, a useless word. You would like it to do the work of the concept "reality" -- indeed, you seem to be making it synonymous with "reality" -- but even "reality" as word and concept gets its meaning and use over against that which is "unreal."

Nature's only content is everything. In that regard, it is a somewhat useless word. Same goes for reality. It contains everything. Unnatural and unreal are merely products of the imagination. They describe nothing.

 

[Angel]

Nature's only content is everything. In that regard, it is a somewhat useless word. Same goes for reality. It contains everything. Unnatural and unreal are merely products of the imagination. They describe nothing.

I'm afraid your denatured (pardon a pun you won't get) version of the meaning of the word "nature" -- purely idiosyncratic as it is -- "describes nothing" and is titally useless to discourse.
The long accepted meanings of the word -- yes, there are two -- are perfectly referential and useful.

I wish you all the best with your solipsistic contrarian reductions to the absurd. I understand that the need to post something is sometimes a need to post anything.

Peace out, pilgrim.

 

[devildavid]

I'm afraid your denatured (pardon a pun you won't get) version of the meaning of the word "nature" -- purely idiosyncratic as it is -- "describes nothing" and is titally useless to discourse.
The long accepted meanings of the word -- yes, there are two -- are perfectly referential and useful.

I wish you all the best with your solipsistic contrarian reductions to the absurd. I understand that the need to post something is sometimes a need to post anything.

Peace out, pilgrim.

Nature describes all of nature, which includes thing that you mistakenly define as somehow different or removed from nature. Everything that human beings do is part of nature. It is not choice we make or can make. Building a house that has electricity and indoor plumbing does not remove a human being from nature.

 

[Angel]

Nature describes all of nature, which includes thing that you mistakenly define as somehow different or removed from nature. Everything that human beings do is part of nature. It is not choice we make or can make. Building a house that has electricity and indoor plumbing does not remove a human being from nature.

You can repeat your idiosyncratic all-inclusive definition of nature till the cows come home, but it with still be idiosyncratic and meaningless. The distinction between the products of nature and the products of human beings is standard, meaningful and in no jeopardy of being replaced by devildavid's definition, posted merely to be contrarian and to have something to post. Human beings are part of nature because nature produces them, but electrified housing is not produced by nature and not a part of nature. Give it a rest.

 

[devildavid]

You can repeat your idiosyncratic all-inclusive definition of nature till the cows come home, but it with still be idiosyncratic and meaningless. The distinction between the products of nature and the products of human beings is standard, meaningful and in no jeopardy of being replaced by devildavid's definition, posted merely to be contrarian and to have something to post. Human beings are part of nature because nature produces them, but electrified housing is not produced by nature and not a part of nature. Give it a rest.

No, it describes what nature actually is. You have to explain how anything is not a part of nature. When did man first leave nature? How did this occur?

Everything a house is made out of put of comes from nature. That human beings build houses for shelter does not make the human being or the shelter separate from nature.

 

[Angel]

No, it describes what nature actually is. You have to explain how anything is not a part of nature. When did man first leave nature? How did this occur?

Everything a house is made out of put of comes from nature. That human beings build houses for shelter does not make the human being or the shelter separate from nature.

Man did not leave nature. You're confused.
What is not made by nature is not naturally made. What man makes is artificial, though his materials are provided by nature.
Your electrified house is an artificial product of man, not a product of nature.
Please give it a rest.

 

[devildavid]

Man did not leave nature. You're confused.
What is not made by nature is not naturally made. What man makes is artificial, though his materials are provided by nature.
Your electrified house is an artificial product of man, not a product of nature.
Please give it a rest.

A house is a natural product of man, just like any other natural shelter man or animal or insect builds with materials which come from nature. When you walk outside does the weather affect you? Can storms damage a house? Or fire? Can the roof leak?

 

[Angel]

A house is a natural product of man, just like any other natural shelter man or animal or insect builds with materials which come from nature. When you walk outside does the weather affect you? Can storms damage a house? Or fire? Can the roof leak?

An electrified house is not a product of nature; it is the product of human nature.

By your overly broad definition, God and the supernatural are natural products of nature as well. Rethink your reductio.

 

[Angel]

A house is a natural product of man, just like any other natural shelter man or animal or insect builds with materials which come from nature. When you walk outside does the weather affect you? Can storms damage a house? Or fire? Can the roof leak?

An electrified house is not a product of nature; it is the product of human nature.

By your overly broad definition, God and the supernatural are natural products of nature as well. Rethink your reductio.

Look, david. I really don't feature dancing this dance with you. Let's leave it at this: You can define nature as broadly and all-inclusively as you like. You can equate nature with the smallest activity of energy if you like, such that everything is nature and natural. But you thus remove yourself from the historical conversation on mankind and nature. Maybe that's all you were trying to do in the first place, and I should have ignored your post. Get in your last word as is your wont, and I'll follow wisdom and ignore it and that'll be that.

 

[devildavid]

Look, david. I really don't feature dancing this dance with you. Let's leave it at this: You can define nature as broadly and all-inclusively as you like. You can equate nature with the smallest activity of energy if you like, such that everything is nature and natural. But you thus remove yourself from the historical conversation on mankind and nature. Maybe that's all you were trying to do in the first place, and I should have ignored your post. Get in your last word as is your wont, and I'll follow wisdom and ignore it and that'll be that.

What you call an historical conversation has changed, but you have been left behind.

 

[Angel]

Gaia​

 

[Oborosen]

Gaia​

Artistic liberties applied, it's quite beautiful.

Edit*

Is it just me, or does the area around her navel seem like one of the best regions to make a home?