Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ibshambat]

For a long time recently, the worst thing of which one could be accused was a pervert.

However there have been any number of perverts among major contributors, particularly among the world's moral leaders.

King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.

King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.

Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.

Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.

Thomas Jefferson was a pervert. He had children by a teenage slave.

Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.

It is time that hypocrisy on this issue be challenged. I know a man who went to jail and lost everything that he had because he chatted up a 16-year-old. I know a woman whose father raped her constantly since she was 4 and got to remain her father. Probably half the people I know were victims of incest. In very few of these cases was the perpetrator punished. Whereas there are all sorts of people, especially in universities, who get treated as the lowest form of life for the most minor things.

The biggest claim about these people – as well as about “sociopaths” and “narcissists” - is that they never change and can only be evil. That is the most irrational thing I've ever heard. Anything capable of choice is capable of change. Anything capable of choice is capable of rightful behavior. That most certainly include all of the above.

This hysteria has involved even the smartest people. I know a beautiful older lady who is a former teacher and journalist and an MD, and she was telling me that we don't rehabilitate sex offenders. Why on earth not? We owe to sex offenders such as the above our moral guidance. Why would a frat boy who is guilty of date rape be treated worse than King Solomon?

Sex abuse victims do not begin to own traumatization. There are all sorts of ways in which people get traumatized. If you want to do away with traumatization, do away with war. Do away with violent or incestuous parenting. Do away with destruction of countries. Do not fixate upon one potential source of wrongdoing while ignoring all others.

I take issue with demonization of people. That is even the case with people who are genuinely bad. Here we see both demonization and hypocrisy. A group in the population gets singled out for extermination under the claim that they are evil and can only be evil. That is irrational, that is hypocritical, that is cruel and that is wrong.

People in constitutional democracies are meant to be protected from those who would perpetrate witch hunts. That, once again, includes “perverts” and “sociopaths.” And what we have seen with the persecution of both is the worst witch hunt in the history of the United States.

It is time that someone say that enough is enough. Put an end to this inquisition and restore human dignity to all people regardless of whether or not someone may think them to be perverts.

[Pattern-chaser]

King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.

King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.

Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.

Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.

Thomas Jefferson was a pervert. He had children by a teenage slave.

Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.

Not all of those things are universally recognised as perversion, although marrying a 9-year-old is widely condemned these days. Your idea(s) of perversion seems to come from Christianity, or from antiquity. Is that your focus here? Is it Christianity that you want to discuss? Specifically, is it sin, as Christians define it, that you wish to discuss?

[The Beast]

King David was a pervert. He took the wife of one of his soldiers and sent him to die in battle.

King Solomon was a pervert. He had 500 concubines.

Socrates was a pervert. He liked little boys.

Mohammad was a pervert. He had sex with a 9-year-old child.

Thomas Jefferson was a pervert. He had children by a teenage slave.

Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.

Not all of those things are universally recognised as perversion, although marrying a 9-year-old is widely condemned these days. Your idea(s) of perversion seems to come from Christianity, or from antiquity. Is that your focus here? Is it Christianity that you want to discuss? Specifically, is it sin, as Christians define it, that you wish to discuss?

Language is associated with culture. In the English/Western civilization, it is a word (pervert) use loosely by people and means a personal blanket adjective. The new word is “pervy”.
In the main context I could say that PC is a pervert for soliciting tolerance of other cultures that allow a nine-year-old girl to get marry. Is there any explanation for this perversion?

[Lagayascienza]

The term "pervert" has very negative connotations. So, what is a perversion? Well, it will depend on the historical and social context. In the ancient world of Greece and Rome, for example, homosexuality was not considered a perversion or criminalized. With the rise of Christianity and Islam that changed and homosexuals were called perverts and jailed of executed. In modern times things began to change again and today many societies now do not regard homosexuality as a perversion and have decriminalized it.

Bestiality, is considered a perversion and remains criminalized in many places. Pedophilia is also considered a perversion and criminalized in most places. I agree that pedophilia should be criminalized because it is exploitative and extremely harmful to children. I have no problem calling pedophiles perverts and I am happy to see them in prison. I'm also ok with calling psychopathic sadists perverts and keeping them in prison where they can harm no one. So, in the end, I think it is about harm. If what you do for kicks harms no one, then I don't think of it as a perversion and I don't think that it should be criminalized. If it harms no one, then it is no one else's business.

This means that I have to define harm, but I don't find that too problematic in most cases. Harm can be physical and/or psychological. If you and a partner are into, say, B&D, and it involves no harm to you or your partner then, even though I don't "get it", I don't see it as a perversion. But if you are into kids, then I see that as a perversion and I want you locked up. Call me intolerant.

[Pattern-chaser]

Queen Catherine the Great was a pervert. She died while trying to have sex with a horse.

The rumor culminated in what is today the most well-remembered detail about Catherine: That she perished when a stud crushed her during coitusequus.

In reality she died in her bed, of a stroke, at the age of 67. But the smear gained legitimacy on the continent, being too misogynistic and Russophobic to ignore. And today it's just so much more awesome to remember Catherine as a quasi-mythical creature that ran through multiple species of dicks to prove her might.

[Good_Egg]

The word "pervert" carries implied disapproval, but it's not just a disapproving label. It does actually mean something.

It's most common use today describes sexual deviance. But I think there is still an offence on the statute book of "perverting the course of justice".

In other words, perversion is taking something that serves a purpose and twisting or corrupting it to serve a lower, baser purpose. That's what the word means.

The human sex drive serves an evolutionary purpose. So getting turned on by horses or underwear catalogues or whips and chains - or anything else other than (an aspect of the process of) a male human impregnating a female human to make babies - is a perversion.

In an overcrowded world, it is entirely possible to think that a little more harmless deviance and a little less baby-making would be a good thing.

So the question of which acts we approve of, tolerate or persecute is a separate question from whether any particular act is perverted. Even though that particular term is more often used by those who disapprove.

If King Solomon impregnated 500 women during his reign, that doesn't sound like a perversion. It sounds like normal male sexual desire. That he then supported them (in the way his culture allowed) rather than discarding them is the mark of being a good king rather than an evil king. Which is why the priests and scribes record the size of his harem with apparent approval.