Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is a "sexual perversion"?

zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a serious question.

First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act. Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

In an etymological sense, to pervert something is to twist something from it's good, intended purpose, to something wrong. This comes from the latin word, pervertere, which means "to turn to ill effect." So to twist someone's mind so that they are unable to think clearly and pursue truth is to pervert their faculties of reasoning.

Natural law theorists would say that sexual actions, which either i. are not procreative or ii. which do not act as foreplay to procreative sex, are sexual "perversions." So under this philosophy, masturbation, non-foreplay oral sex, homosexual actions, contraception, etc. are all "perverted." I personally buy this, but I know most people don't, and it's extremely controversial.

So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 6:29:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.

Yes. I think casual sex is improper. It ruins the psychologies of both men and women. Morever, it destroys their ability to pair-bond and it makes them see the opposite sex more as a sexual tool, rather than a person.

It's interesting that you'd go even further than. I've never really thought about the idea that some kinds of sex could be "immoral". I remember 16KAdams linking me to Contradiction's website, wherein he wrote a paper on why some kind of sex was immoral. But other than that, the thought has never crossed my mind.

Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

As you wrote, twisting the conception of sex to become something else, I guess, would count as perversion.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 6:41:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 6:29:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.

Yes. I think casual sex is improper. It ruins the psychologies of both men and women. Morever, it destroys their ability to pair-bond and it makes them see the opposite sex more as a sexual tool, rather than a person.

It's interesting that you'd go even further than. I've never really thought about the idea that some kinds of sex could be "immoral". I remember 16KAdams linking me to Contradiction's website, wherein he wrote a paper on why some kind of sex was immoral. But other than that, the thought has never crossed my mind.

Didn't know he had a website. Link?


Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

As you wrote, twisting the conception of sex to become something else, I guess, would count as perversion.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 6:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 6:41:37 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/29/2015 6:29:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.

Yes. I think casual sex is improper. It ruins the psychologies of both men and women. Morever, it destroys their ability to pair-bond and it makes them see the opposite sex more as a sexual tool, rather than a person.

It's interesting that you'd go even further than. I've never really thought about the idea that some kinds of sex could be "immoral". I remember 16KAdams linking me to Contradiction's website, wherein he wrote a paper on why some kind of sex was immoral. But other than that, the thought has never crossed my mind.

Didn't know he had a website. Link?

http://timhsiao.org...


Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

As you wrote, twisting the conception of sex to become something else, I guess, would count as perversion.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 8:03:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is a serious question.

First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act. Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

In an etymological sense, to pervert something is to twist something from it's good, intended purpose, to something wrong. This comes from the latin word, pervertere, which means "to turn to ill effect." So to twist someone's mind so that they are unable to think clearly and pursue truth is to pervert their faculties of reasoning.

Natural law theorists would say that sexual actions, which either i. are not procreative or ii. which do not act as foreplay to procreative sex, are sexual "perversions." So under this philosophy, masturbation, non-foreplay oral sex, homosexual actions, contraception, etc. are all "perverted." I personally buy this, but I know most people don't, and it's extremely controversial.

So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

Court justice Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 9:19:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is a serious question.

First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act. Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

In an etymological sense, to pervert something is to twist something from it's good, intended purpose, to something wrong. This comes from the latin word, pervertere, which means "to turn to ill effect." So to twist someone's mind so that they are unable to think clearly and pursue truth is to pervert their faculties of reasoning.

Natural law theorists would say that sexual actions, which either i. are not procreative or ii. which do not act as foreplay to procreative sex, are sexual "perversions." So under this philosophy, masturbation, non-foreplay oral sex, homosexual actions, contraception, etc. are all "perverted." I personally buy this, but I know most people don't, and it's extremely controversial.

So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

Society deems any behavior which flies in the face of its collective ideology to be "perverted."

Of course, since this definition is man made it is therefore subjective. And not objective. As there are no moral absolutes.

Reminds me of a question that has been bothering me.

I have a step-sister. My parents adopted her when she was five. She is 9 years younger than me. That is, she is 30.

Gorgeous. (Used to model for Dillard's in Austin). Single..never married.

I have been highly attracted to her since she was in her mid-teens.

When I was between wives...at around 32 years of age, she was 23. We were sitting at her apartment watching movies. Together on the couch. Movie ended. We watched some Skinemax. We were sitting very close together. She had on only a tee-shirt and panties.

We sort of got in the mood...started making out. We did not evolve to full-on sex. Only got to what used to be called "heavy making-out." LOL. Second base.

We have done this several times over the years. About six months ago we rented a condo in Sedona for the weekend and spent most of it inside. Engaged in continual, and very very satisfying sex.

Is this wrong?

AS I said: there is no "blood" among us, as she was adopted. But we did grow up in the same household as brother and sister, until I went away to college at 19 and she was 11.

Am I therefore one of the "perverts" from the OP?

thanks. Also, this IS a serious question. And yes, one that lends itself to some taunting and smarmy replies. But I respectfully request only sincere and non-hostile answers.

Thanks again.

Drew
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2015 9:40:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 6:29:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.

Yes. I think casual sex is improper. It ruins the psychologies of both men and women. Morever, it destroys their ability to pair-bond and it makes them see the opposite sex more as a sexual tool, rather than a person.

It's interesting that you'd go even further than. I've never really thought about the idea that some kinds of sex could be "immoral". I remember 16KAdams linking me to Contradiction's website, wherein he wrote a paper on why some kind of sex was immoral. But other than that, the thought has never crossed my mind.

Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

As you wrote, twisting the conception of sex to become something else, I guess, would count as perversion.

I disagree.

How exactly does it "ruin the psychology" of both the man and woman?

Sex is a natural act. Many Evolutionists would say that Marriage is the unnatural act here. men and women were designed to love each other. We are hardwired in our DNA for passion. For sexual attraction. And to bring this attraction to fruition.

So how does adhering to natural instincts in any way hurt our psyches? Let alone ruin them?

Of course, my conditions for this casual sex would be for those of age, that is, mature enough to understand the implications of the act of sex.

If God wanted is to only have sex when we were married why we He instill us with the drive from adolescence? Why would he not create us so that drive was "switched off" until marriage?

Which, BTW, was never ordered by Jesus to be preferable. or to be even the normal state of people.

If yo personally do not agree with pre-marital or casual sex, fine. But I think it is wrong to groundlessly claim it ruins people. And yes--Psych was my major in college, so I can say your claim is groundless. As far as well-adjusted adults are concerned.

Or maybe you can prove me wrong with a link, or a source?

thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 12:29:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 9:40:53 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 6:29:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.

Yes. I think casual sex is improper. It ruins the psychologies of both men and women. Morever, it destroys their ability to pair-bond and it makes them see the opposite sex more as a sexual tool, rather than a person.

It's interesting that you'd go even further than. I've never really thought about the idea that some kinds of sex could be "immoral". I remember 16KAdams linking me to Contradiction's website, wherein he wrote a paper on why some kind of sex was immoral. But other than that, the thought has never crossed my mind.

Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

As you wrote, twisting the conception of sex to become something else, I guess, would count as perversion.


I disagree.

How exactly does it "ruin the psychology" of both the man and woman?

Sex is a natural act. Many Evolutionists would say that Marriage is the unnatural act here. men and women were designed to love each other. We are hardwired in our DNA for passion. For sexual attraction. And to bring this attraction to fruition.

It ruins our ability to pairbond; sex isn't bad in itself.


So how does adhering to natural instincts in any way hurt our psyches? Let alone ruin them?

I already explained this.


Of course, my conditions for this casual sex would be for those of age, that is, mature enough to understand the implications of the act of sex.

If you think that sex is purely about the conscious thoughts and physical experience, you are an imbecile.


If God wanted is to only have sex when we were married why we He instill us with the drive from adolescence? Why would he not create us so that drive was "switched off" until marriage?

I'm not religious


Which, BTW, was never ordered by Jesus to be preferable. or to be even the normal state of people.

If yo personally do not agree with pre-marital or casual sex, fine. But I think it is wrong to groundlessly claim it ruins people. And yes--Psych was my major in college, so I can say your claim is groundless.

Lol, and then you ask for a link later. Clearly, if my ground is claimless, because you're such an impressive Psych major, then there wouldn't be any links or sources that I ever prove you wrong with, right?

As far as well-adjusted adults are concerned.

You just shifted the goalposts and created a NoTrueScotsman. *yawn*


Or maybe you can prove me wrong with a link, or a source?

thanks!

Why should I bother explaining to you my sources? Convince me that I should.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:31:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is a serious question.

First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.
Rape?
Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?
You literally just defined it - a sexual act is perverted if it's improper or immoral.
In an etymological sense, to pervert something is to twist something from it's good, intended purpose, to something wrong. This comes from the latin word, pervertere, which means "to turn to ill effect." So to twist someone's mind so that they are unable to think clearly and pursue truth is to pervert their faculties of reasoning.

Natural law theorists would say that sexual actions, which either i. are not procreative or ii. which do not act as foreplay to procreative sex, are sexual "perversions." So under this philosophy, masturbation, non-foreplay oral sex, homosexual actions, contraception, etc. are all "perverted." I personally buy this, but I know most people don't, and it's extremely controversial.
Uh, what? Some Christian subsets of Natural Law philosophies might believe that, but it's in no way universal among those who believe in Natural Law theory.
So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

Again, you already answered this... I don't know what more you want.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 5:51:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:31:12 AM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is a serious question.

First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.
Rape?
Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?
You literally just defined it - a sexual act is perverted if it's improper or immoral.
In an etymological sense, to pervert something is to twist something from it's good, intended purpose, to something wrong. This comes from the latin word, pervertere, which means "to turn to ill effect." So to twist someone's mind so that they are unable to think clearly and pursue truth is to pervert their faculties of reasoning.

Natural law theorists would say that sexual actions, which either i. are not procreative or ii. which do not act as foreplay to procreative sex, are sexual "perversions." So under this philosophy, masturbation, non-foreplay oral sex, homosexual actions, contraception, etc. are all "perverted." I personally buy this, but I know most people don't, and it's extremely controversial.
Uh, what? Some Christian subsets of Natural Law philosophies might believe that, but it's in no way universal among those who believe in Natural Law theory.
So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

Again, you already answered this... I don't know what more you want.

Be more specific. What sexual acts are improper/immoral?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 12:09:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is a serious question.

First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act. Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

In an etymological sense, to pervert something is to twist something from it's good, intended purpose, to something wrong. This comes from the latin word, pervertere, which means "to turn to ill effect." So to twist someone's mind so that they are unable to think clearly and pursue truth is to pervert their faculties of reasoning.

Natural law theorists would say that sexual actions, which either i. are not procreative or ii. which do not act as foreplay to procreative sex, are sexual "perversions." So under this philosophy, masturbation, non-foreplay oral sex, homosexual actions, contraception, etc. are all "perverted." I personally buy this, but I know most people don't, and it's extremely controversial.

So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

A sexual act is perverted if it involves any of the following things:

Dogs
Cats
Horses
Tuna Fish
An Egg Beater
A Tennis shoe filled with mud
Pumpkins or Pumpkin Pie
Hillary Clinton
Chris Christie
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 12:41:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is a serious question.

First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act. Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

In an etymological sense, to pervert something is to twist something from it's good, intended purpose, to something wrong. This comes from the latin word, pervertere, which means "to turn to ill effect." So to twist someone's mind so that they are unable to think clearly and pursue truth is to pervert their faculties of reasoning.

Natural law theorists would say that sexual actions, which either i. are not procreative or ii. which do not act as foreplay to procreative sex, are sexual "perversions." So under this philosophy, masturbation, non-foreplay oral sex, homosexual actions, contraception, etc. are all "perverted." I personally buy this, but I know most people don't, and it's extremely controversial.

So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

I agree with you that all those are 'improper', though I'd be careful with labelling them as perverted as a direct result of improper. I don't think we should be determining word senses by looking into etymology. As I've said in another part of the site, etymologically, 'homophobia' is 'the fear of sameness'... I think the best way to define 'perverted' is to look at corpus statistics to determine the boundaries in which acts described as perverted generally lie.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 12:47:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 12:29:27 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/29/2015 9:40:53 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 6:29:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.

Yes. I think casual sex is improper. It ruins the psychologies of both men and women. Morever, it destroys their ability to pair-bond and it makes them see the opposite sex more as a sexual tool, rather than a person.

It's interesting that you'd go even further than. I've never really thought about the idea that some kinds of sex could be "immoral". I remember 16KAdams linking me to Contradiction's website, wherein he wrote a paper on why some kind of sex was immoral. But other than that, the thought has never crossed my mind.

Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

As you wrote, twisting the conception of sex to become something else, I guess, would count as perversion.


I disagree.

How exactly does it "ruin the psychology" of both the man and woman?

Sex is a natural act. Many Evolutionists would say that Marriage is the unnatural act here. men and women were designed to love each other. We are hardwired in our DNA for passion. For sexual attraction. And to bring this attraction to fruition.

It ruins our ability to pairbond; sex isn't bad in itself.


So how does adhering to natural instincts in any way hurt our psyches? Let alone ruin them?

I already explained this.


Of course, my conditions for this casual sex would be for those of age, that is, mature enough to understand the implications of the act of sex.

If you think that sex is purely about the conscious thoughts and physical experience, you are an imbecile.


If God wanted is to only have sex when we were married why we He instill us with the drive from adolescence? Why would he not create us so that drive was "switched off" until marriage?

I'm not religious


Which, BTW, was never ordered by Jesus to be preferable. or to be even the normal state of people.

If yo personally do not agree with pre-marital or casual sex, fine. But I think it is wrong to groundlessly claim it ruins people. And yes--Psych was my major in college, so I can say your claim is groundless.

Lol, and then you ask for a link later. Clearly, if my ground is claimless, because you're such an impressive Psych major, then there wouldn't be any links or sources that I ever prove you wrong with, right?

As far as well-adjusted adults are concerned.

You just shifted the goalposts and created a NoTrueScotsman. *yawn*


Or maybe you can prove me wrong with a link, or a source?

thanks!

Why should I bother explaining to you my sources? Convince me that I should.

Twit....

You have no sources. That's why you wont share.

("Convince me I should!
"


LOL--that's what I little kid would say. Or somebody who knows they have been called on something they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of proving.

You whole opinion that sex "psychologically ruins us" is one of the most ludicrous ideas I have ever heard in the Psych arena. As groundless and arbitrary as is humanly possible.
An idea probably coming from somebody who has been in love with somebody, had sex, and then was spurned. The old "once bitten twice shy" adage.

So, if that's the case. Too bad. Get over it. Do not cast your emotional frailties and shortcomings, as well as your sexual oppression on the rest of us. It shows is two things: that you are totally ignorant in matters concerning the human condition and our psychological make-up....and TWO--that you are just another sexually-frustrated/stilted little girl tossing out silly little comments before a captive audience.

Your type woul probably fare much better on a site like Yahoo Answers!
Younger crowd, there, With LOTS of silliness.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 5:51:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 12:47:55 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 12:29:27 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/29/2015 9:40:53 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 6:29:45 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act.

Yes. I think casual sex is improper. It ruins the psychologies of both men and women. Morever, it destroys their ability to pair-bond and it makes them see the opposite sex more as a sexual tool, rather than a person.

It's interesting that you'd go even further than. I've never really thought about the idea that some kinds of sex could be "immoral". I remember 16KAdams linking me to Contradiction's website, wherein he wrote a paper on why some kind of sex was immoral. But other than that, the thought has never crossed my mind.

Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

As you wrote, twisting the conception of sex to become something else, I guess, would count as perversion.


I disagree.

How exactly does it "ruin the psychology" of both the man and woman?

Sex is a natural act. Many Evolutionists would say that Marriage is the unnatural act here. men and women were designed to love each other. We are hardwired in our DNA for passion. For sexual attraction. And to bring this attraction to fruition.

It ruins our ability to pairbond; sex isn't bad in itself.


So how does adhering to natural instincts in any way hurt our psyches? Let alone ruin them?

I already explained this.


Of course, my conditions for this casual sex would be for those of age, that is, mature enough to understand the implications of the act of sex.

If you think that sex is purely about the conscious thoughts and physical experience, you are an imbecile.


If God wanted is to only have sex when we were married why we He instill us with the drive from adolescence? Why would he not create us so that drive was "switched off" until marriage?

I'm not religious


Which, BTW, was never ordered by Jesus to be preferable. or to be even the normal state of people.

If yo personally do not agree with pre-marital or casual sex, fine. But I think it is wrong to groundlessly claim it ruins people. And yes--Psych was my major in college, so I can say your claim is groundless.

Lol, and then you ask for a link later. Clearly, if my ground is claimless, because you're such an impressive Psych major, then there wouldn't be any links or sources that I ever prove you wrong with, right?

As far as well-adjusted adults are concerned.

You just shifted the goalposts and created a NoTrueScotsman. *yawn*


Or maybe you can prove me wrong with a link, or a source?

thanks!

Why should I bother explaining to you my sources? Convince me that I should.



Twit....

You have no sources. That's why you wont share.

That's why you asked me for my sources: because you know I don't have any.

Imbecile. Blocked.


("Convince me I should!
"


LOL--that's what I little kid would say. Or somebody who knows they have been called on something they don't have a snowball's chance in Hell of proving.

You whole opinion that sex "psychologically ruins us" is one of the most ludicrous ideas I have ever heard in the Psych arena. As groundless and arbitrary as is humanly possible.
An idea probably coming from somebody who has been in love with somebody, had sex, and then was spurned. The old "once bitten twice shy" adage.

So, if that's the case. Too bad. Get over it. Do not cast your emotional frailties and shortcomings, as well as your sexual oppression on the rest of us. It shows is two things: that you are totally ignorant in matters concerning the human condition and our psychological make-up....and TWO--that you are just another sexually-frustrated/stilted little girl tossing out silly little comments before a captive audience.

Your type woul probably fare much better on a site like Yahoo Answers!
Younger crowd, there, With LOTS of silliness.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 6:20:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that natural law theory is based in creationist assumptions, so I naturally don't buy into it. As Bossy pointed out, a sexual act which I would consider perverted (turned from its proper purpose) would be rape, and I'd also add sex which takes advantage of someone else through an asymmetry of information or maturity, and sex without any real emotional connection. I actually agree with Zarroette that an important function of sex is bonding, and that sex which is purely recreational, without any personal connection, comes with costs which far outweigh the benefits.

As Epicurus put it: "No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 6:32:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 6:20:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that natural law theory is based in creationist assumptions, so I naturally don't buy into it.
Is it, though? I don't understand the association between religion and natural law - I would argue that natural law is just the natural evolution of Aristotelian virtue ethics and doesn't need to be justified with a belief in a higher power. Of course, Aquinean theories are dependent on God, but not natural law in general.

@Mike

I can't really give specifics because people hold different values. The best I can do is that a perverse act is perverse if it requires that a man acts against what he values, as is the case in recreational sex (where sex is reduced down to an act devoid of anything but physical pleasure, thus devaluing sex with real emotional connexions).
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:25:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

I do not understand why sex is demonized ... so, i will say it only has to do with consent. There is no such thing as sexual perversion to the participants, for to them, it is natural. It may be a perversion to someone else, but they are the ones that make that rule ... and, that should only apply to them. So, the ones that think it is a perversion will just stay away from the act they dislike ... but, to the participants of the act ... i say have fun.

I think sex has negative effects bc it is demonized in so many ways ... mainly by out-dated religious dogma. I was able to consent right at puberty ... probably before. I remember many times i wanted to experiment but that negative outlook on the matter made me scared to. Now if that wasn't there ... i probably would have had a lot of experiences. Now, this doesn't mean i may have not regretted some acts ... i mean, every day i get older my attraction preferences change ... but, i do not regret any experience.

My whole thing is ... why is sexual activity demonized in the first place? why do people care what makes others feel good and happy in this regard? Just bc i do not like egg-plants as a food, doesn't mean i should go around and demonize it ... or a better analogy. My fear of spiders. I hate them ... but does it mean everyone should? actually my fear of them rub off on others ... so, am i in the right when demonizing them to the eyes of someone that loves them? No, they just ignore my "perversions" Why is it in sex that we feel so strongly to condemn another's love? Is it jealousy? is it power? I really don't get it ... im not trolling, i'm really curious about my question...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:30:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:25:44 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

I do not understand why sex is demonized ... so, i will say it only has to do with consent. There is no such thing as sexual perversion to the participants, for to them, it is natural. It may be a perversion to someone else, but they are the ones that make that rule ... and, that should only apply to them. So, the ones that think it is a perversion will just stay away from the act they dislike ... but, to the participants of the act ... i say have fun.

I think sex has negative effects bc it is demonized in so many ways ... mainly by out-dated religious dogma. I was able to consent right at puberty ... probably before. I remember many times i wanted to experiment but that negative outlook on the matter made me scared to. Now if that wasn't there ... i probably would have had a lot of experiences. Now, this doesn't mean i may have not regretted some acts ... i mean, every day i get older my attraction preferences change ... but, i do not regret any experience.

My whole thing is ... why is sexual activity demonized in the first place? why do people care what makes others feel good and happy in this regard? Just bc i do not like egg-plants as a food, doesn't mean i should go around and demonize it ... or a better analogy. My fear of spiders. I hate them ... but does it mean everyone should? actually my fear of them rub off on others ... so, am i in the right when demonizing them to the eyes of someone that loves them? No, they just ignore my "perversions" Why is it in sex that we feel so strongly to condemn another's love? Is it jealousy? is it power? I really don't get it ... im not trolling, i'm really curious about my question...

Because sex is very very central and essential to humans. It has moral significance because it's where human beings are united as persons, and where procreation, in specific, the propagation of the human race, comes from. I don't see how sex *isn't*' morally significant.

Dr. Feser wrote on this not too long ago.. you may find this interesting http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

Regardless of your views regarding sex, I do think it is a very significant topic.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:59:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:30:33 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:25:44 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Because sex is very very central and essential to humans. It has moral significance because it's where human beings are united as persons, and where procreation, in specific, the propagation of the human race, comes from. I don't see how sex *isn't*' morally significant.

Who is putting all of these definitions on it? Humans being united as a person sounds like some spiritual mumbo jumbo ... Why can't sex be for procreation (which is obvious) but also just simply a pleasure? Again, i don't understand why it is demonized in the second regard...

Dr. Feser wrote on this not too long ago.. you may find this interesting http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...

What he said is true in regards to certain morals, but those can be taught. Instead of demonizing it and making absolute definitions of it ... how about we teach the moral aspects and add in that it is just "Love making," and leave it to the participants to decide the right and wrong.

Regardless of your views regarding sex, I do think it is a very significant topic.

it is a very significant topic ... i agree on this point. But, i disagree that one thing works for all. I believe sexual activity should be all up to the participants. It has nothing to do with anyone else. Just like in many things in life, we all have differences ... and we accept those for the most part ... but when it comes to sex ... it is spelled out as a persons ultimatum. What does what i consent to, have anything to do with another? Even if my consent may have been a mistake ... we make those throughout life.

I think the fact that sex has been demonized in ways is what creates the problems in the first place ... why is it that ... the one pleasure on this planet ... that can arguably be the best pleasure ... is demonized? I don't get it. .. there is no perversions in my eyes to consenting participants. We are talking about "love" making ... in a world that is lacking in love. But wait ... why am i even talking about love? Lust is also a good thing...so sexual activity can be for both love and lust ... whatever, the definition placed on it is up to the person that gives it the definition. I may be ignorant to some things ... so please explain this to me. But, what i do know is the demonizing on this subject has effected me much worse than if it was an accepted topic (the demonizing is the problem - sh't thinking of demons is societies problem in general).
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:18:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Society deems any behavior which flies in the face of its collective ideology to be "perverted."

I think your answer was awesome. It is the demonizing by religious zealots over the years that have given such a beautiful thing a negative view.

And, what if she was your sister, cousin, etc ... I think, that is absolutely gross (and you probably agree) ... but, to participants that accept it ... it is pure joy. Who am i to say they are wrong? Why would i take this pleasure away from them? All i have to do is not do it ... bc it is against my values or morals. Yes, it may have psychological effects on them ... but, that is bc society is so selfish, it is bc they have to hide something from the world, it is the demonizing of sex that affects people.

I have put aside religious dogma long time ago ... and, as soon as i did this world can't be any more amazing in regards to this subject (which is huge in of itself). Yet, still ... in my past, i have sexual regrets. These regrets are bc i was such an idiot to think that sex is wrong in any way. With knowledge comes power ... in any subject. Btw, i am no pimp that goes around and sleeps with anything that walks ... but, i know when i do choose to do it, it is wonderful if it is only for a night or relationship. This world needs to get over their jealousy in this subject, it is all subjective bias by people that can't get laid ... Or, think about like this act is the most important thing that could happen, etc ...this is the silliest subject in the world today in my opinion ... we need to evolve.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:26:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:18:04 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/29/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Society deems any behavior which flies in the face of its collective ideology to be "perverted."

I think your answer was awesome. It is the demonizing by religious zealots over the years that have given such a beautiful thing a negative view.

And, what if she was your sister, cousin, etc ... I think, that is absolutely gross (and you probably agree) ... but, to participants that accept it ... it is pure joy. Who am i to say they are wrong? Why would i take this pleasure away from them? All i have to do is not do it ... bc it is against my values or morals. Yes, it may have psychological effects on them ... but, that is bc society is so selfish, it is bc they have to hide something from the world, it is the demonizing of sex that affects people.

I have put aside religious dogma long time ago ... and, as soon as i did this world can't be any more amazing in regards to this subject (which is huge in of itself). Yet, still ... in my past, i have sexual regrets. These regrets are bc i was such an idiot to think that sex is wrong in any way. With knowledge comes power ... in any subject. Btw, i am no pimp that goes around and sleeps with anything that walks ... but, i know when i do choose to do it, it is wonderful if it is only for a night or relationship. This world needs to get over their jealousy in this subject, it is all subjective bias by people that can't get laid ... Or, think about like this act is the most important thing that could happen, etc ...this is the silliest subject in the world today in my opinion ... we need to evolve.

Good post, bro.

I agree with all of it. (Well, except that sex with Jocelyn was gross. It was awesome!)

And congrats on leaving the Oppressive Cloak of Religion. You are right: knowledge IS power. And so is Freedom. And I will always maintain that is Atheists and Agnostics get FAR more out of life than do the deluded religious folks.

Thanks again.

Drew.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:41:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:26:49 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:18:04 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/29/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

I agree with all of it. (Well, except that sex with Jocelyn was gross. It was awesome!)

Haha, i won't lie ... i am quite jealous of your experience. I just might write a new religion saying that this is a "sin." ;p

You have lived a desired fantasy of mine and probably a couple other billion. Rock on man! But did you really have to say the "tee-shirt and panties" part; that really rubbed it in Lol.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:43:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:41:45 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:26:49 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:18:04 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/29/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

I agree with all of it. (Well, except that sex with Jocelyn was gross. It was awesome!)

Haha, i won't lie ... i am quite jealous of your experience. I just might write a new religion saying that this is a "sin." ;p

You have lived a desired fantasy of mine and probably a couple other billion. Rock on man! But did you really have to say the "tee-shirt and panties" part; that really rubbed it in Lol.

Sorry of that was TMI, bro. I kinda got caught up in the reverie of the moment when I was typing last night.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:46:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:43:23 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:41:45 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:26:49 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:18:04 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/29/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:

Sorry of that was TMI, bro. I kinda got caught up in the reverie of the moment when I was typing last night.

Don't even trip ... it was a good story ;) Plus, i am sure it resonates with a lot of people that just need someone to tell them ... Sex is not evil!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:13:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 6:32:02 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2015 6:20:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that natural law theory is based in creationist assumptions, so I naturally don't buy into it.
Is it, though? I don't understand the association between religion and natural law - I would argue that natural law is just the natural evolution of Aristotelian virtue ethics and doesn't need to be justified with a belief in a higher power. Of course, Aquinean theories are dependent on God, but not natural law in general.

You'll have to define your terms here; 'natural law' has been applied to a lot of things in a lot of different ways. The natural law theory that I was criticizing here was, naturally, the one which holds that sex or body parts have some inherent function. Evolution and natural selection contradict this entirely; 'function' is determined by the interaction between an organism and its environment, and is in no way fixed. If it were, then nothing ever would have evolved. If you want to argue that the 'function' is just a mental framework that humans came up with to better understand how nature works, then I'd agree. But that would also remove the sort of objective morality which is being appealed to here.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:22:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:13:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/30/2015 6:32:02 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2015 6:20:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that natural law theory is based in creationist assumptions, so I naturally don't buy into it.
Is it, though? I don't understand the association between religion and natural law - I would argue that natural law is just the natural evolution of Aristotelian virtue ethics and doesn't need to be justified with a belief in a higher power. Of course, Aquinean theories are dependent on God, but not natural law in general.

You'll have to define your terms here; 'natural law' has been applied to a lot of things in a lot of different ways. The natural law theory that I was criticizing here was, naturally, the one which holds that sex or body parts have some inherent function. Evolution and natural selection contradict this entirely; 'function' is determined by the interaction between an organism and its environment, and is in no way fixed. If it were, then nothing ever would have evolved. If you want to argue that the 'function' is just a mental framework that humans came up with to better understand how nature works, then I'd agree. But that would also remove the sort of objective morality which is being appealed to here.

I agree that those subsets of Natural Law theory are flawed for the reasons you pointed out - however, just because Natural Law theories generally state that things have specific natures and certain things will result from their use/action (essentially the same as a "function", in the sense that the function of an acorn is to grow into a tree when planted) does not mean that all Natural Law philosophies define the function of sex in the way you're portraying them to.

You can criticize specific Natural Law philosophies, but the genus doesn't necessarily entail that the philosophies have the flaws you're criticizing. It's a much more vague category of theories than most people think, and the only common element is the belief in natures and functions - nothing about the specific natures or functions are mandated in order for a philosophy to fall under the label.

Re: functions changing -

The argument could be made that, as soon as an entity changes to the point where its function changes, it becomes a separate entity entirely in its own class and disparate from the original - change just creates the possibility of more functions, instead of demanding stagnation.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 5:50:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:22:26 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:13:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/30/2015 6:32:02 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2015 6:20:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that natural law theory is based in creationist assumptions, so I naturally don't buy into it.
Is it, though? I don't understand the association between religion and natural law - I would argue that natural law is just the natural evolution of Aristotelian virtue ethics and doesn't need to be justified with a belief in a higher power. Of course, Aquinean theories are dependent on God, but not natural law in general.

You'll have to define your terms here; 'natural law' has been applied to a lot of things in a lot of different ways. The natural law theory that I was criticizing here was, naturally, the one which holds that sex or body parts have some inherent function. Evolution and natural selection contradict this entirely; 'function' is determined by the interaction between an organism and its environment, and is in no way fixed. If it were, then nothing ever would have evolved. If you want to argue that the 'function' is just a mental framework that humans came up with to better understand how nature works, then I'd agree. But that would also remove the sort of objective morality which is being appealed to here.

I agree that those subsets of Natural Law theory are flawed for the reasons you pointed out - however, just because Natural Law theories generally state that things have specific natures and certain things will result from their use/action (essentially the same as a "function", in the sense that the function of an acorn is to grow into a tree when planted) does not mean that all Natural Law philosophies define the function of sex in the way you're portraying them to.

You can criticize specific Natural Law philosophies, but the genus doesn't necessarily entail that the philosophies have the flaws you're criticizing. It's a much more vague category of theories than most people think, and the only common element is the belief in natures and functions - nothing about the specific natures or functions are mandated in order for a philosophy to fall under the label.

Yeah, I agree, I was relying on context to relay my point. I'm much more in tune, for example, with Hobbesian natural law theories than anything else.


The argument could be made that, as soon as an entity changes to the point where its function changes, it becomes a separate entity entirely in its own class and disparate from the original - change just creates the possibility of more functions, instead of demanding stagnation.

Yeah, and that's the speciation quagmire that biology now recognizes is inescapable: there's no solid border between two different species, things shift both geographically and temporally, with relationships with other organisms being a far better starting point for analysis (genome comparisons) then the sort of Linnaean cladistics which previously dominated, based on observed traits. Coevolution, in particular, challenges the sentiment that traits have any sort of function which isn't a figment of the human imagination.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 5:50:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:22:26 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 7/1/2015 5:13:35 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/30/2015 6:32:02 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 6/30/2015 6:20:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I think that natural law theory is based in creationist assumptions, so I naturally don't buy into it.
Is it, though? I don't understand the association between religion and natural law - I would argue that natural law is just the natural evolution of Aristotelian virtue ethics and doesn't need to be justified with a belief in a higher power. Of course, Aquinean theories are dependent on God, but not natural law in general.

You'll have to define your terms here; 'natural law' has been applied to a lot of things in a lot of different ways. The natural law theory that I was criticizing here was, naturally, the one which holds that sex or body parts have some inherent function. Evolution and natural selection contradict this entirely; 'function' is determined by the interaction between an organism and its environment, and is in no way fixed. If it were, then nothing ever would have evolved. If you want to argue that the 'function' is just a mental framework that humans came up with to better understand how nature works, then I'd agree. But that would also remove the sort of objective morality which is being appealed to here.

I agree that those subsets of Natural Law theory are flawed for the reasons you pointed out - however, just because Natural Law theories generally state that things have specific natures and certain things will result from their use/action (essentially the same as a "function", in the sense that the function of an acorn is to grow into a tree when planted) does not mean that all Natural Law philosophies define the function of sex in the way you're portraying them to.

You can criticize specific Natural Law philosophies, but the genus doesn't necessarily entail that the philosophies have the flaws you're criticizing. It's a much more vague category of theories than most people think, and the only common element is the belief in natures and functions - nothing about the specific natures or functions are mandated in order for a philosophy to fall under the label.

Yeah, I agree, I was relying on context to relay my point. I'm much more in tune, for example, with Hobbesian natural law theories than anything else.
Got it.
The argument could be made that, as soon as an entity changes to the point where its function changes, it becomes a separate entity entirely in its own class and disparate from the original - change just creates the possibility of more functions, instead of demanding stagnation.

Yeah, and that's the speciation quagmire that biology now recognizes is inescapable: there's no solid border between two different species, things shift both geographically and temporally, with relationships with other organisms being a far better starting point for analysis (genome comparisons) then the sort of Linnaean cladistics which previously dominated, based on observed traits. Coevolution, in particular, challenges the sentiment that traits have any sort of function which isn't a figment of the human imagination.

That really just depends on how you define "function"... there's a distinction between, say, god-given functions that are clearly aimed towards an end intentionally and functions in the sense of what *actually* happens when the potential of the entity is actualized. The latter isn't harmed by evolution, and it seems to be what most Aristotelians refer to when they talk about teleology. It's just basically the law of identity applied to a causal chain - the fact that there are multiple identities doesn't neuter the fact that each individual thing does have an identity itself that's unique and has specific qualities.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 6:33:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not sure how this thread turned into a discussion about natural law, lol - sorry Mike
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2015 5:15:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/29/2015 9:19:32 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/29/2015 5:45:13 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is a serious question.

First, is there such thing as a "sexual perversion"? This means, an improper or immoral sexual act. Second of all, how does one define some things as a perversions but others as non-perverted?

In an etymological sense, to pervert something is to twist something from it's good, intended purpose, to something wrong. This comes from the latin word, pervertere, which means "to turn to ill effect." So to twist someone's mind so that they are unable to think clearly and pursue truth is to pervert their faculties of reasoning.

Natural law theorists would say that sexual actions, which either i. are not procreative or ii. which do not act as foreplay to procreative sex, are sexual "perversions." So under this philosophy, masturbation, non-foreplay oral sex, homosexual actions, contraception, etc. are all "perverted." I personally buy this, but I know most people don't, and it's extremely controversial.

So I'm curious, and I want to know how you would define a sexual perversion. Is it something dependent upon what is socially acceptable? In which case, what is a sexual perversion could change. Or is it something else, such as consent?

What are your thoughts?

Society deems any behavior which flies in the face of its collective ideology to be "perverted."

Of course, since this definition is man made it is therefore subjective. And not objective. As there are no moral absolutes.

Reminds me of a question that has been bothering me.

I have a step-sister. My parents adopted her when she was five. She is 9 years younger than me. That is, she is 30.

Gorgeous. (Used to model for Dillard's in Austin). Single..never married.

I have been highly attracted to her since she was in her mid-teens.

When I was between wives...at around 32 years of age, she was 23. We were sitting at her apartment watching movies. Together on the couch. Movie ended. We watched some Skinemax. We were sitting very close together. She had on only a tee-shirt and panties.

We sort of got in the mood...started making out. We did not evolve to full-on sex. Only got to what used to be called "heavy making-out." LOL. Second base.

We have done this several times over the years. About six months ago we rented a condo in Sedona for the weekend and spent most of it inside. Engaged in continual, and very very satisfying sex.

Is this wrong?

AS I said: there is no "blood" among us, as she was adopted. But we did grow up in the same household as brother and sister, until I went away to college at 19 and she was 11.

Am I therefore one of the "perverts" from the OP?

thanks. Also, this IS a serious question. And yes, one that lends itself to some taunting and smarmy replies. But I respectfully request only sincere and non-hostile answers.

Thanks again.

Drew

Short answer no with an if, long answer yes with a but.

Can you honestly state you never used your authority as a big brother/role-model-whatever-you-want-to-call-it in your familial setting to potentially groom her as a sexual partner?

No influence, no problems.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...