23 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywilli thought i did answer that. sexual perversion doesn't exist if it involves any number of consenting adults. it all depends on what some people would say about a certain sexual act. it is not perverse until the majority of a certain society labels it as such.
My question didn't assume it was easy to define. My question was did the poster take a position that sexual perversion did not exist.
Aside from the difficulty of defining specifics, does "all sexuality" mean sexual perversion (difficult or easy to define from culture to culture) not exist?
perversion occurs when children are involved and may the bastards hang then.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywillso it is your opinion you should follow your pastors opinions of what the opinions of the creators of the bible were?
Me without opinions?
My opinion is that if I am going to be a human being then I HAVE to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
My opinion is that if Jesus is not God become a man then there is no reason for mankind or the universe to exist.
Do you want more opinions from me?
My opinion is that God is absolutely Righteous in His ways, words, ac ...[text shortened]... with other people. Years latter, perhaps, they just remember something that the Bible says.
do you still think you have opinion? are they your own? did you got them independently of what others think?
stop deluding yourself.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhat about sadistic sex which involves the exchange of menstrual blood and excrement? I personally think that is always perverse, no matter what other people think.
i thought i did answer that. sexual perversion doesn't exist if it involves any number of consenting adults.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by jaywillunbelievable. some passages from the bible you take literally. but when they don't suit your needs, you interpret them.
I was expecting some astute skeptic to come up with a good one.
First, what does it mean that the wives of his master were put [b]" into [his] keeping? "
Can you prove to me that that means God instructed David to have sex with them?
Let's start there. Maybe you have a tough one for me.[/b]
the lord god of israel was bragging to david. Behold i saved you and i did this and that for you. what do you think was the lord intention when he gave saul's wives to david? so that david would not touch them and not look at them(because he was married). What would be the point of the speech. Behold i saved you and i made you king, but i have some women that need housing and food, please take care of them and don't you dare make a move on any of them.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Kwhat about what the persons involved in it think? i wouldn't try it, but why should those two or more people who like it not be able to do it?
What about sadistic sex which involves the exchange of menstrual blood and excrement? I personally think that is always perverse, no matter what other people think.
i don't understand SM. i wouldn't try it. i consider myself a raging homophobe. and i wouldn't experiment kissing a dude not ever. that doesn't mean i consider the gays in any way less than the rest of us. what goes on between consenting adults in their homes is of their own business and nobody should interfere in that.
when we forbid certain things because we don't like them and those things don't hurt anyone, we are violating human rights. tobacco causes cancer. it is the risk any smoker is willing to make. don't ban tobacco but forbid smokers from smoking in public places. that way they indulge in their activity and nobody else gets hurt
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanziwhat about what the persons involved in it think? i wouldn't try it, but why should those two or more people who like it not be able to do it?
what about what the persons involved in it think? i wouldn't try it, but why should those two or more people who like it not be able to do it?
i don't understand SM. i wouldn't try it. i consider myself a raging homophobe. and i wouldn't experiment kissing a dude not ever. that doesn't mean i consider the gays in any way less than the rest of us. what g ...[text shortened]... king in public places. that way they indulge in their activity and nobody else gets hurt
The issue is not whether this sex should be legalised but whether it is perverse. I agree that this abnormal sexual behaviour should be tolerated under the law; I still it is reasonable to describe it as perverse.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Kif everyone is doing it why is it perverse? do you think that something is fundamentally perverse, that there was no need for anyone to label it as such it just was?
[b]what about what the persons involved in it think? i wouldn't try it, but why should those two or more people who like it not be able to do it?
The issue is not whether this sex should be legalised but whether it is perverse. I agree that this abnormal sexual behaviour should be tolerated under the law; I still it is reasonable to describe it as perverse.[/b]
in medieval times, the doggy style position was considered perverse(because that is how animals do it, the nerve of humans to behave like animals). so what do you think? either the people were wrong in labeling something they thought perverse or (my opinion) that thing really was perverse because those people labeled it. now that nobody (besides fanatic religious type) thinks doggy style is an abomination, does it change its status? is it perverse anymore? in future time, orgies might become ordinary sexual practice. would it still be perverse then?
perverse is something against the public opinion. not against nature as some would call it.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanziif everyone is doing it why is it perverse? do you think that something is fundamentally perverse, that there was no need for anyone to label it as such it just was?
if everyone is doing it why is it perverse? do you think that something is fundamentally perverse, that there was no need for anyone to label it as such it just was?
in medieval times, the doggy style position was considered perverse(because that is how animals do it, the nerve of humans to behave like animals). so what do you think? either the people we ...[text shortened]... ?
perverse is something against the public opinion. not against nature as some would call it.
Yes; it is perverse because it is unhygeinic and probably stems from a disordered psychological state.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau Ksex is unhygienic. kissing is unhygienic, shaking hands is unhygienic. public transports are disgusting. but we are intelligent enough to use soap afterwards.
[b]if everyone is doing it why is it perverse? do you think that something is fundamentally perverse, that there was no need for anyone to label it as such it just was?
Yes; it is perverse because it is unhygeinic and probably stems from a disordered psychological state.[/b]
disordered psychological state? perhaps. but so are those that bungee jump. or sky dive. or enjoy boxing (both watching and practicing it)
humans like to experiment, to feel pleasure. if nobody gets hurt what is the problem.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzisex is unhygienic. kissing is unhygienic, shaking hands is unhygienic. public transports are disgusting. but we are intelligent enough to use soap afterwards.
sex is unhygienic. kissing is unhygienic, shaking hands is unhygienic. public transports are disgusting. but we are intelligent enough to use soap afterwards.
disordered psychological state? perhaps. but so are those that bungee jump. or sky dive. or enjoy boxing (both watching and practicing it)
humans like to experiment, to feel pleasure. if nobody gets hurt what is the problem.
Remember: the example that I am discussing is sadistic sex which involves the exchange of menstrual blood and faeces. Just to make it more obvious, I will make it the consumption of menstrual blood and faeces. While the examples you provide may be minimally unhygeinic, this one is likely to be always unhygeinic, even lethal.
disordered psychological state? perhaps. but so are those that bungee jump. or sky dive. or enjoy boxing (both watching and practicing it)
The above example probably represents a really disturbed mind. Even if it became statistically normal, it would be perverse. I can't explain better than that; it just is.
23 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kwhat is really a disturbed mind? who is entitled to judge. who is normal enough to impose his normality on us and declare what is and isn't normal?
[b]sex is unhygienic. kissing is unhygienic, shaking hands is unhygienic. public transports are disgusting. but we are intelligent enough to use soap afterwards.
Remember: the example that I am discussing is sadistic sex which involves the exchange of menstrual blood and faeces. Just to make it more obvious, I will make it the consumption of menstrua ...[text shortened]... ecame statistically normal, it would be perverse. I can't explain better than that; it just is.[/b]
your example doesn't constitute sexual practice anymore, it constitutes a pathological issue. people hurting themselves. i was talking about sexual practices between consenting adults that are declared sane by public courts and don't hurt anyone.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe issue of sanity is immaterial. I am only saying that we can objectively judge what is perverse behaviour -- and the mentally ill can commit acts of perversion.
what is really a disturbed mind? who is entitled to judge. who is normal enough to impose his normality on us and declare what is and isn't normal?
your example doesn't constitute sexual practice anymore, it constitutes a pathological issue. people hurting themselves. i was talking about sexual practices between consenting adults that are declared sane by public courts and don't hurt anyone.
23 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasWithin what laws? Your moral standard ["anything goes between consenting adults"] is at odds with at least some of the law in most cultures. You can't just kow-tow to the law now without a serious re-write of your own moral proposition.
If masochists agree to have violent sex, then let them. Whithin the laws, naturally. If someone dies, then of course it's a crime. But physical limited harm with concent, is there any harm with that?
What if someone is permanently paralyzed from the waist down [instead of dying]? Is it still morally acceptable?
Your last question answers itself.